Would you support 2% dilution to BitAsset Yield for a 6 month limited trial?

[cylonmaker2053]

i voted YES purely on the condition that this is a LIMITED TRIAL with perpetuation of the policy contingent on results.

[tonyk]

Any bank pay you interest for the money in your pocket?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html

it is better Zapply... before we made the people providing  the product  pay the customer interest for having/using the product...

it is better now, cause we have found out we can pay you same or better interests... by printing new money...

I really cannot see how this could fail? 

Ohh and those are not actually new money... cause we told you at the beginning exactly how much we can print! So printing them does not count.

PS
now you have it tbone...now you can say I have stated I do not like the proposal...
PSS
The same problem applies to MKR btw...in somewhat greater sense. per their design payments from the shorters are essential for the value of their 'insurance' doa.

[Zapply]

Any bank pay you interest for the money in your pocket?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15888.0.html

If I'm bad guy, and I have 1 million USD. I want BTS price keep falling down.
What I need to do is, change all my money to BITUSD, Then wait the monthly expire of short order. I'll hold all my BITUSD until we have no enough shorter, the expired short order have to get the BITUSD to cover. Shorter need to sell BTS to get BITUSD, while all the BITUSD is hold by me.This will keep the price falling. 

As a bad guy, I'll lose nothing, while earn some interesting.

I think the rule need be changed. The one hold BITUSD should pay people short for them.

In an bank I borrow money, and I can use the money to do more meaningful things, and I have to pay interesting.
In BTS, I short BTS and create BITUSD, but I can not use the BITUSD, other people get my BITUSD, and use BITUSD, and I have to pay the interesting to him. What a fuck???

BITUSD is for trade, not for people to hold. I'd like suggest people who short, set interesting to 0.
People who hold bitUSD can use the bitUSD to trade, to buy stuff, to hire people to work for them in the Internet, and can invest with bitUSD. bitUSD is like the money in your pocket. Any bank pay u interest while the money is in your pocket?
As a Shorter, yes, we can get more BTS. BUT, the BTS is locked, we can not use the BTS do any thing but hoping the BTS price goes up.

This is not how the world run!!
We need is real economist. Don't tell me BM is a economist..

We have already identified this problem and also the solution:

1) No interest on BitUSD
2) No expiration on Shorts unless USD request force settlement at a discount (profit to the short)
3) Bond market which locks up BitUSD like a CD and pays interest.

[tbone]

If we were to implement this, I think yield harvesting should be made very easy for anyone to participate.  So it should not be necessary to explicitly go through the steps of borrowing BitUSD and shorting it to themselves.  It should be as easy as clicking a button.  Although in that case perhaps extra collateral should be required in order to avoid having to manage it.   And then if anyone wants to get more yield than is available via the "yield for dummies" way, they can do it the current way by actually going through the steps and then having to manage the position.  Although perhaps there can be alerts to warn users if they have a position that is getting close to becoming undercollateralized.  Does this make sense?

I agree, it would be good if the process could me made as simple as possible.

There is also some value in having shareholders go through the steps so that they become active/knowledgable vs. passive users of the DEX but I guess the incentive to do that would be the higher yield you could get with a more actively managed, lower collateral position.

Exactly.  Not to mention, there are certainly people that would be active on the DEX but wouldn't be comfortable explicitly going through the process of borrowing BitUSD and then shorting it to themselves. 

[Empirical1.2]

If we were to implement this, I think yield harvesting should be made very easy for anyone to participate.  So it should not be necessary to explicitly go through the steps of borrowing BitUSD and shorting it to themselves.  It should be as easy as clicking a button.  Although in that case perhaps extra collateral should be required in order to avoid having to manage it.   And then if anyone wants to get more yield than is available via the "yield for dummies" way, they can do it the current way by actually going through the steps and then having to manage the position.  Although perhaps there can be alerts to warn users if they have a position that is getting close to becoming undercollateralized.  Does this make sense?

I agree, it would be good if the process could me made as simple as possible.

There is also some value in having shareholders go through the steps so that they become active/knowledgable vs. passive users of the DEX but I guess the incentive to do that would be the higher yield you could get with a more actively managed, lower collateral position.

[Tuck Fheman]

After the bitcoin halving in July when the bitcoin price triples, and Ethereum's market cap hits $30 billion

 

[tbone]

Empirical regardless of merits this will never be tried. It takes 40% of the dev fund. And it cannot be stopped at 6 mo. if it is seen as working. cause the bootstrapping phase will have just begun. It will take years. I know you took one number from a post of bm's as an argument, but in fact the other (market maker) liquidity measure can run on much much less than that number. You took it at face value and run with it.

So, working or not this is untestable,imo.

This can also be done for less.  But you just took the one number at face value and ran with it.  Also, I love how you argue against this proposal because if it works, we won't stop it.  That's brilliant, tony.

Are you gonna stop putting words in my mouth...like ever?
Where did  you see me arguing against the proposal?

I stand corrected.  But you sure do have a funny way of showing your support for something.  I guess that's just part of your charm!

[giant middle finger]

After the bitcoin halving in July when the bitcoin price triples, and Ethereum's market cap hits $30 billion, we might just get enough ether dust speculated into BTS to raise our market cap to $30-$40 million and our dev pool funds will go much farther.

We don't need to go to the moon to be the first profitable DAC do we?

[tonyk]

Empirical regardless of merits this will never be tried. It takes 40% of the dev fund. And it cannot be stopped at 6 mo. if it is seen as working. cause the bootstrapping phase will have just begun. It will take years. I know you took one number from a post of bm's as an argument, but in fact the other (market maker) liquidity measure can run on much much less than that number. You took it at face value and run with it.

So, working or not this is untestable,imo.

This can also be done for less.  But you just took the one number at face value and ran with it.  Also, I love how you argue against this proposal because if it works, we won't stop it.  That's brilliant, tony.

Are you gonna stop putting words in my mouth and twisting facts...like ever?
Where did  you see me arguing against the proposal?

[tbone]

Empirical regardless of merits this will never be tried. It takes 40% of the dev fund. And it cannot be stopped at 6 mo. if it is seen as working. cause the bootstrapping phase will have just begun. It will take years. I know you took one number from a post of bm's as an argument, but in fact the other (market maker) liquidity measure can run on much much less than that number. You took it at face value and run with it.

So, working or not this is untestable,imo.

This can also be done for less.  But you just took the one number at face value and ran with it.  Also, I love how you argue against this proposal because if it works, we won't stop it.  That's brilliant, tony.

[giant middle finger]

It would be like moving toward a more traditional POS model where the "staking" rewards would be for holding anything but the core asset.

E

[Empirical1.2]

Empirical regardless of merits this will never be tried. It takes 40% of the dev fund. And it cannot be stopped at 6 mo. if it is seen as working. cause the bootstrapping phase will have just begun. It will take years. I know you took one number from a post of bm's as an argument, but in fact the other (market maker) liquidity measure can run on much much less than that number. You took it at face value and run with it.

So, working or not this is untestable,imo.

I personally prefer yield to a liquidity only solution, even if the liquidity can be achieved for a much lower cost than the figure I used.

A BitUSD liquidity incentive may only increase transient use of BitUSD. In other words when BTC/Crypto is falling people may look to hedge into BitUSD but then leave BTS again. This doesn't create so much net new long-term BTS demand but does incur the constant cost of liquidity provision.

Yield would incentivize new BTS demand which would be held for the medium to long term in order to receive the BitUSD yield. So it would hopefully increase BTS value for the duration net new demand exceeded yield cost.  A concept I've taken a stab at explaining here https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21641.0.html

 

[tonyk]

Empirical regardless of merits this will never be tried. It takes 40% of the dev fund. And it cannot be stopped at 6 mo. if it is seen as working. cause the bootstrapping phase will have just begun. It will take years. I know you took one number from a post of bm's as an argument, but in fact the other (market maker) liquidity measure can run on much much less than that number. You took it at face value and run with it.

So, working or not this is untestable,imo.

[tbone]

Do you think DASH Masternodes or PPC minting rewards are anti-free market? Most POS alts these days offer various rewards which can be mitigated by holders if they engage in the network positive behaviour the reward is attempting to incentivize.

This proposed inflation would encourage people to hold equal long and short positions in the DEX simultaneously in order to avoid dilution.  That doesnt sound like making bitAssets useful, it sounds like forcing BTS holders to take on risk and needlessly manage some positions just in order to not lose value.

I think this is one of the only potentially valid points you have made against the proposal.  @Empirical1.2, can you speak to the risk of having the simultaneously long and short positions advocated by your proposal?

Ander is right that if BTS declines you can be margin called or force settled. This would mean you either have to

A) Manage your overall position in a significant BTS decline

If you failed to do this and were force settled/margin called you'd have to sell some BitUSD and then re-short to rebalance your position. This process would add to liquidity though.

B) Short with more than 100% collateral. This is the lazy option, it reduces the effective yield you are getting but it makes it less likely you'll have to manage it. (However provided total BitUSD in circulation < 1/3 of BTS value, you could short with 200% collateral and not be affected by the yield worker proposal.)

This is a positive as BitAssets would become more collateralised/safe.

C) You could also apply tonyk's suggestion listed in the OP of giving some of the yield to shorts, so that shorting with more collateral incurs less of a loss and yield harvesting is made easier. This would also create some new shorting demand which adds to liquidity.

I'd be interested how risky others view it and how hard they feel it would be to manage that risk. Bytemaster for example describes yield harvesting as very low risk.

If we were to implement this, I think yield harvesting should be made very easy for anyone to participate.  So it should not be necessary to explicitly go through the steps of borrowing BitUSD and shorting it to themselves.  It should be as easy as clicking a button.  Although in that case perhaps extra collateral should be required in order to avoid having to manage it.   And then if anyone wants to get more yield than is available via the "yield for dummies" way, they can do it the current way by actually going through the steps and then having to manage the position.  Although perhaps there can be alerts to warn users if they have a position that is getting close to becoming undercollateralized.  Does this make sense?

so this would be a "temporary" feature that would last only until the bond market was ready?

It could even be removed before then if it was not producing positive results.

@Empirical1.2:  How the yield harvesting fits in with a bond market is another good question and one that should be discussed further.  And I don't mean if the yield harvesting isn't working.  I mean if it IS working.  Do we continue it when the bond market is finally ready?   Do they complement each other?  Do they conflict?  Please walk me through that.

If there is no good reason to have both, then I would only be interested in the yield harvesting if it can be implemented a lot more quickly than a bond market (for instance, if it would take 1-2 months to implement yield harvesting, but 6+ months to implement bond market).   

The bond market would work similarly to lending at Poloniex I believe. So if you had BitUSD you may make a loan offer to someone who wanted gain BitUSD leverage. So this is how you could generate free market interest on your BitUSD.

So this would incentivise BitUSD demand (because people want interest) without any yield worker proposal.

Personally I still see a lot of value in having a little yield on BitAssets through the method stated in the OP so BitUSD still has an advertisable USP (Yield) for  less sophisticated BitUSD holders for a fairly neutral cost to shareholders. (However we could see by the market reaction to doing it how valuable it was/wasn't to BTS value in practice.)

Also yes I imagine this proposal could be implemented within 30 days of being approved (not that I know anything about coding) whereas the bond market is not currently under development AFAIK and is surely 6+ months away.

Yes, I'm 100% in favor of a Poloniex-style bond market, although with some modifications to fix any shortcomings including an issue that I believe prevents some people from using it as much as they might like to.

As far as bond market vs. yield harvesting, it sounds beneficial to have them both, although the yield harvesting can probably be tapered off once the DEX is bootstrapped.  Also, if it's true (as most seem to believe) that the bond market is at least 6 months off, then to me that really makes the case to move forward with your yield harvesting proposal ASAP. 

[xeroc]

how many  normal people would like to use bitUSD  ……？？？？？？？？？
is the mobile wallet  easy  enough？？
is there more and more forum use bitUSD？

Why don't you ask @alt, it seems he has a plan to fix everything by not having further development of the frontend.