Committee killed option trading on Bitshares

[binggo]

I must question the "legit business", i think it is very clearly to provide service to the people of some countrys, so where is the KYC of RUDEX, GDEX and bitsharesdex?

A higher creation fee can't stop the scamcoin, this is a very simple truth, now the committees make this decision, but the scamcoin still be there and still will appear again, so who will be responsible for the new scamcoin? the committes who voted in this proposal?

After BSIP86, the system will gain the profit from the scamcoin, so who is the accessory?

Every blockchain have 'illegal business', if these blockchain should kill themselves or higher the fees?

The committees just kill and harm the normal business and users, but didn't have any effect to the scamcoin.

守法朝朝忧闷，强梁夜夜欢歌。

典型的懒政。

The bitshares just provide the service, legit or illegal is not the business of system.

if the committees want every business is legit, why not to build a centralization system which will be controlled by committees?

and why you want a "incentralization" system? and if the bitshares belong to the gateway?

This time, the request to increase fees came from the Russian community, brought up by a legit business - RuDEX. Another legit business, GDEX, voiced support, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32136.msg342089#msg342089 .

There have two relevant stakeholders of GDEX in the committe, so ……


The committees just like a group of kids……

Now, if can i call open.asset is scamcoin? the committees want to control, ok, how the committees want to solve the problem of open.asset?

Now, if can i call bitcny/bitusd is scamcoin? the committees want to control, ok, how the committees want to solve the problem of bitcny/bitusd?

evade，evade，evade......for so long time

[abit]

Another potential solution proposed by a community member:

charge a higher fee for creation of tokens without a prefix, but a much lower fee on the tokens with a prefix.

E.G. the fee is 1000$ for the MYDEX token, but 50$ for MYDEX.ABC or MYDEX.XYZ.
Note: only owner of MYDEX has the right to create new tokens with the MYDEX prefix.

With this mechanism, the legit businesses only need to invest once (or even very little if can get compensated in some way), as a side benefit, they gain brand effect by having all tokens under the same prefix.

[abit]

Which committee member voted for this increase ?

Who have voted are on the chain.

Actually discussions about fees have been around since long before, E.G. https://github.com/bitshares/committee-tools/issues/4.

This time, the request to increase fees came from the Russian community, brought up by a legit business - RuDEX. Another legit business, GDEX, voiced support, see https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32136.msg342089#msg342089 .

This is temporary until UI gets updated ?

There is a core problem, which does prevent the reuse of the asset for the prediction market ?

Think openly, the issue is actually how to improve the system to support legit businesses, not only limited to legit prediction markets. We acknowledge that scammers can abuse prediction markets too, although perhaps not yet happened.

In my opinion, for OP and similar businesses, at this moment, if the community really supports them, creating worker proposals to get compensated is the way to go. Another option is to ask the committee for compensation, although I don't know whether the committee has the right to do so, for example, why compensate one business but not another?

Look at the business logic, reusing token is a bit complex. There is a lot of dust to clean after a market is closed. The participants aren't incentivized to clean the dust right now. Creating a new token is much easier. On the other hand, more "dead" tokens means more resources locked in the system, which is not what we want.

I think one solution would be to have some kind of refunding mechanism, say, refund 90% when a market is closed properly, e.g. all outstanding token settled/destroyed, to save resources for the system. Actually, if the asset owners are able to achieve this, the token is technically ready to be reused, so perhaps just reuse it -- this need a hard fork anyway, so we can actually improve more things at the same time, E.G. put it in the 5.0 release. Any way, to make things done, we start from a discussion, then work out the specifications, then implement, etc, actively participation is required.

[bench]

Which committee member voted for this increase ?

This is temporary until UI gets updated ?

There is a core problem, which does prevent the reuse of the asset for the prediction market ?

[Thul3]

I can't understand the community.
They complain massivly about the abuse.
2 days ago even Stan got abused by Abit and the community united with Stan against Abits abuse.

But still they are voting for them as committee and witness.
So the abuse its their own fault.
Would they show a clear sign the abuse would stop quickly.

Even lowering the amount of votes of these 4 committee members would be a big step forward so they can't each time overpass the clear no from the other 7 committee members.

[binggo]

⊙∀⊙！！！

That's very very very hahaha

The bts holder vote for the committee, now they exercise the authority!

Oh, let's check the power structure of committee, there have six committees come from China, and a proposal can be passed only need four committees.

That's very interesting, the bts holder make this decision, now they must suffer this result.

[optionswallet]

Due to the increase in the commission up to 25,000 BTS for the creation of an asset, no one in their right mind will start to launch weekly, monthly, quarterly and possibly yearly option contracts for Bitshares.
Right way, comrades