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

[iHashFury]

If you would like to see and trade more MPA's (smartcoins) try using https://altcap.io as a wallet!

[JonnyB]

How also making bitusd a core trading pair in gui also. With enough liquidity people would rather against bitusd than other coins.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

In the light wallet it is.
In the web GUI (openledger) it is not. 
I think Ronny from OL should focus on just bitusd and open.btc for now
theres alot of similar assets which all have almost zero volume OPEN.USD, OPEN.USDT, OPEN.SBD and OPEN.EURT

[JonnyB]

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

Did you mean "but make the payment in BTS"? I was thinking about something like that... it doesn't solve problem with low liquidity of BitUSD but IMHO is closer to how people think when making a worker proposal.

Exactly, it wouldn't help with liquidity. If workers get paid 50 BitUSD per day it's easy enough to turn that in to $50 worth of BTS.

[JonnyB]

The kosher way to do this would be through a smart contract, like steem did. But, this would require some efforts from devs, and for this reason is unlikely to happen soon.

Yes the steem way makes sense. Hopefully this code could be lifted straight from Steem as they both use graphene.

[abit]

Just a note, NBT had much more liquidity than BitUSD..

[Pheonike]

How also making bitusd a core trading pair in gui also. With enough liquidity people would rather against bitusd than other coins.

Sent from my SM-N920T using Tapatalk

[paliboy]

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

Did you mean "but make the payment in BTS"? I was thinking about something like that... it doesn't solve problem with low liquidity of BitUSD but IMHO is closer to how people think when making a worker proposal.

[bitcrab]

the idea of paying bitUSD to worker is interesting and make sense.

but it will bring some challenge, the committee will need to borrow bitUSD, and sell BTS periodically  with high enough price to cover the debt position.

let's first do some calculation.

currently the reserve balance is 1,029,940,606 BTS, if we put half of these balance to collateral with a low enough price say 0.0018USD/BTS as"my margin call price", we can get 463473 bitUSD.

suppose we set budget at 80USD/hour, then these bitUSD can offer at least 241 days.

to make this happen, we need:
1.developers provide the necessary change, maybe a hard fork is needed?
2.committee draft a plan to borrow bitUSD and sell BTS periodically, committee will play the role a little like FED.

surely the precondition is that the community reach a consensus on doing this.

Absolutely we need consensus, but I don't think people will support accessing the reserve pool at a rate higher than the current max spending budget of:
14,675 BTS per hour.  (see here http://cryptofresh.com/reserve)
Like you say this max 14675 bts hour is equivalent to $80 per hour at todays prices.

How we make this max worker budget function as bitUSD instead of BTS is tricky.
 I can't see how it would work with the decentralised voting system if the committee is paying the workers.

if committee can sell BTS in good price, then actually the cost from reserve pool will be lowered, and I think shareholders would like to see this.
this is not difficult, as committee has a long time to wait for the selling orders to be fulfilled.
the key point is how this can get enough support from shareholders and committee members, and how to manage the process.

[yvv]

The kosher way to do this would be through a smart contract, like steem did. But, this would require some efforts from devs, and for this reason is unlikely to happen soon.

[JonnyB]

the idea of paying bitUSD to worker is interesting and make sense.

but it will bring some challenge, the committee will need to borrow bitUSD, and sell BTS periodically  with high enough price to cover the debt position.

let's first do some calculation.

currently the reserve balance is 1,029,940,606 BTS, if we put half of these balance to collateral with a low enough price say 0.0018USD/BTS as"my margin call price", we can get 463473 bitUSD.

suppose we set budget at 80USD/hour, then these bitUSD can offer at least 241 days.

to make this happen, we need:
1.developers provide the necessary change, maybe a hard fork is needed?
2.committee draft a plan to borrow bitUSD and sell BTS periodically, committee will play the role a little like FED.

surely the precondition is that the community reach a consensus on doing this.

Absolutely we need consensus, but I don't think people will support accessing the reserve pool at a rate higher than the current max spending budget of:
14,675 BTS per hour.  (see here http://cryptofresh.com/reserve)
Like you say this max 14675 bts hour is equivalent to $80 per hour at todays prices.

How we make this max worker budget function as bitUSD instead of BTS is tricky.
 I can't see how it would work with the decentralised voting system if the committee is paying the workers.

[bitcrab]

the idea of paying bitUSD to worker is interesting and make sense.

but it will bring some challenge, the committee will need to borrow bitUSD, and sell BTS periodically  with high enough price to cover the debt position.

let's first do some calculation.

currently the reserve balance is 1,029,940,606 BTS, if we put half of these balance to collateral with a low enough price say 0.0018USD/BTS as"my margin call price", we can get 463473 bitUSD.

suppose we set budget at 80USD/hour, then these bitUSD can offer at least 241 days.

to make this happen, we need:
1.developers provide the necessary change, maybe a hard fork is needed?
2.committee draft a plan to borrow bitUSD and sell BTS periodically, committee will play the role a little like FED.

surely the precondition is that the community reach a consensus on doing this.

[mike623317]

Great idea jonny  . Be interested to hear from Stan or any of the devs on this idea for feedback.

So what would be the steps to make this happen and the cost?

[yvv]

Workers actually have a good incentive to choose to be paid in bitAssets, because they are often traded above the feed price. In this case a worker will get more USD for 1 bitUSD than he would get if he would be paid in BTS. If bitUSD falls below the feed, he can always force settle at feed price.

[fav]

make it happen

[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.

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.

I see, there will be other source of bitUSD for sale than the one from shorting. The offer of bitUSD will rise.