Steem dollar is more liquid than BitUSD. We should copy it's key feature.

[noisy]

I totally agree with @JonnyBitcoin

I even posted similar idea here:

When you will ask Americans which currency is the most stable for them, they will answer - USD
When you will ask Chinese which currency is the most stable for them, they will answer - CNY

This is obvious, right?

So why we are selling and buying things here with BTS? This thread is of course related to @tonyk 's thread: bitSHARES - As True Shares and Not a Currency!

When I came to bitshares, I was convinced, that bitshares has great value for companies, because there is no risk at all, when you use it as derivative asset. This is great explained here:

https://youtu.be/pbX4nt2UKP4?t=6m55s

So... the question is, why we pay witnesses with BTS? We should ask each of them which bitAsset they prefer and give them...

[yvv]

This makes sense and looks like a very simple scheme to implement. If it is implemented through a worker, no change in protocol is required. Workers can be paid in bitAssets or in BTS at same time, whatever they choose. BitAssets will be created using worker budget of 14K BTS per hour, and if they fall below the feed price, they'll get settled through forced settlements at feed price. Not much efforts are required to keep this scheme going.

Cashing out of bitAsset for fiat by workers is not going to increase BTS inflation. This will increase bitAsset supply.

[JonnyB]

Well, we cannot ignore that Steem took the intertubes in a viral way, which Bitshares failed (so far) to do - therefore, one would expect more SBD liquidity just from that alone.

What you propose here may also have merit, I confess the numbers and implications befuddle me .. it would make more sense to pay workers with smartcoins, but are there hidden implications, that's my concern.

Another key part of the reason is that the documentation about shorting and creating bitAssets is frankly very confusing .. I played around with it a couple of times, and always got margin called.. in my sleep.. because there's no stop-loss ..

I agree the whole shorting bitassets into existence is very confusing.
People get confused between forced settlements and margin calls.
I also think some people don't realise that they do no have a short position until they sell the bitassets that they create.
The inability of shorters to close their positions near settlement price is a big problem that is not widely understood.
I may make a video explaining the basics of how bitassets are created and then destroyed when a collateral position is closed.

[JonnyB]

As far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation.
     1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply.
     1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.

If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. 

Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea.

What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.

There is a reserve pool of "unavailable" BTS see here: http://cryptofresh.com/reserve
Currently just over a billion BTS
This fund is used to pay workers at a max rate of 14,677 BTS per hour but a lesser rate is usually elected.

Instead of paying a max rate of 14677 BTS per hour I am suggesting the max rate per hour is the equivalent value but in BitUSD.

If the backing collateral was from the reserve pool it wouldn't have a net inflationary value outcome because they could only force settle for 1:1 value.
The 3:1 dilution which you mention would not be expanding the supply of BTS because the collateral would be returned to the reserve pool in the event of a force settle.

I am afraid that it does not solve the problem of selling bitUSD by workers. Workers and witness sell to get fiat. Maybe part would be sold directly on bitUSD/USD market instead in bitUSD-BTS-USD order.  It would be better for BTS, but the only solution I see is bitUSD commonly used for trade see BitShares Munich project.

I think you misunderstand. You say "the problem of witnesses and workers selling their BitUSD for BTS"
This is actually the benefit.
Witnesses and workers would most likely sell their BitUSD to others, this means there would be a bigger supply of BitUSD for others to buy.

[karnal]

Well, we cannot ignore that Steem took the intertubes in a viral way, which Bitshares failed (so far) to do - therefore, one would expect more SBD liquidity just from that alone.

What you propose here may also have merit, I confess the numbers and implications befuddle me .. it would make more sense to pay workers with smartcoins, but are there hidden implications, that's my concern.

Another key part of the reason is that the documentation about shorting and creating bitAssets is frankly very confusing .. I played around with it a couple of times, and always got margin called.. in my sleep.. because there's no stop-loss ..

[valtr]

As far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation.
     1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply.
     1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.

If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. 

Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea.

What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.

There is a reserve pool of "unavailable" BTS see here: http://cryptofresh.com/reserve
Currently just over a billion BTS
This fund is used to pay workers at a max rate of 14,677 BTS per hour but a lesser rate is usually elected.

Instead of paying a max rate of 14677 BTS per hour I am suggesting the max rate per hour is the equivalent value but in BitUSD.

If the backing collateral was from the reserve pool it wouldn't have a net inflationary value outcome because they could only force settle for 1:1 value.
The 3:1 dilution which you mention would not be expanding the supply of BTS because the collateral would be returned to the reserve pool in the event of a force settle.

I am afraid that it does not solve the problem of selling bitUSD by workers. Workers and witness sell to get fiat. Maybe part would be sold directly on bitUSD/USD market instead in bitUSD-BTS-USD order.  It would be better for BTS, but the only solution I see is bitUSD commonly used for trade see BitShares Munich project.

[JonnyB]

As far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation.
     1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply.
     1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.

If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. 

Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea.

What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.

There is a reserve pool of "unavailable" BTS see here: http://cryptofresh.com/reserve
Currently just over a billion BTS
This fund is used to pay workers at a max rate of 14,677 BTS per hour but a lesser rate is usually elected.

Instead of paying a max rate of 14677 BTS per hour I am suggesting the max rate per hour is the equivalent value but in BitUSD.

If the backing collateral was from the reserve pool it wouldn't have a net inflationary value outcome because they could only force settle for 1:1 value.
The 3:1 dilution which you mention would not be expanding the supply of BTS because the collateral would be returned to the reserve pool in the event of a force settle.

[KenMonkey]

Perhaps have worker proposals contracts "we'll pay you 50USD in value each day" but make the 'value' in BTS. 

[KenMonkey]

As far as I can see this wont relieve selling pressure on BTS and it would increase the inflation.
     1.1. To create 1 bitUSD it takes 3x BTS, which means we'll be putting 3x BTS into the total supply.
     1.2. If workers want to sell their earnings, they will. If the demand for bitUSD is X then it will stay the same. Workers can and should trade their payments in BTS for bitUSD as they get it, now that would relieve selling pressure, increase liquidity and ensure the workers' compensation is fixed.

If the blockchain collateralized bitUSD into existence then where is the collateral? To me it seems the blockchain voting and payment can only pay in the core token. 

Would it really encourage traders to trust the system more if liquidity was provided by automated process rather than real activity? I suppose it might actually... but to an already complicated (but amazing) platform to add further complexity and a complex hard-fork seems like a bad idea.

What we could really do is fix the damn blockchain explorer showing ZERO volume for the bitUSD:BTS pair. That's an easy fix to generate more volume! Let's use the thousands of dollars already there! As traders start using bitshares to store value safely or to short the USD we wont have to worry about problems like this.

[JonnyB]

BitUSD   0.8 BTC buy wall / 1.3 BTC sell wall


Steem Backed dollar 50 BTC buy wall / 30BTC sell wall


There are a lot more Steem dollars around than BitUSD and they are much more liquid.

The key reason is because the Steem blockchain creates the Steem dollars autonomously and distributes them.

The Bitshares blockchain only creates and distributes BTS but relies on traders to create the BitUSD.

If the Bitshares blockchain paid our witnesses and workers in BitUSD instead of BTS it would have the following effects.

- Reduce selling pressure on BTS
- Create a large supply of BitUSD
- Create liquidity and confidence for traders to short even more BitUSD in to existence.
- Easier to understand how much worker proposals are being paid /asking for
- Workers would know how many dollars they were getting paid each month.
- We wouldn't be increasing the current inflation rate of BTS from what it is now

This proposal was the result of a long discussion here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22935.0.html
Ultimately this would need a hard fork, money for development and shareholder consensus.

Please keep on topic and concise with any replies.