New BSIP: Design a Primary market which can map the orders of the Gateway market

[shulthz]

Cause
Inter-Blockchain technology still needs much time to research and develop, but we still need to design a market first for these functions or other.
BTS has so many gateway markets, but can't make a well depth and liquidity for each other and users.
The target audience was limited for the gateway market.

GOAL
Design a market first for these functions or other.
Solve the decentralized problem of gateway market, give the user more better trading experience, they don't need to face the poor depth and liquidity of the gateway market which they only know.
Give the gateway a more wider audience, increase the depth and liquidity.

Precondition
Multi-signature wallet;
Primary market;

Scheme

1. A multi-signature wallet(like BTC).
   People deposit BTC to Gateway BTC wallet，Gateway BTC wallet transfer BTC to multi-signature BTC wallet, then the multi-signature wallet issue the Gateway.UIA.
   Person deposit BTC to the multi-signature wallet directly, this multi-signature wallet will issue the multi-signature UIA in the Primary market.

2. The gateway want to access the Primary market or the Gateway market want to be mapped the orders by Primary market, the gateway must transfer all the BTC and issuer authority to the multi-signature wallet;

3. Design a Primary market: this market will map the orders of the Gateway market which have achieved the necessary condition 2.
   The asset in this Primary market will have the same name, e.g. gdex.btc will be btc, open.btc will be btc.

In the Primary market:
Taker can fill the orders which were mapped to the Primary market; the real trade happend in the Gateway market.
Taker can fill the pending orders which were directly placed in the the Primary market; the real trade happend in the Primary market.
The orders which happend in the Gateway market directly will can't influence the maker in the Primary market;
The asset of the gateway which have achieved the necessary condition 2 can directly trad in Primary market;

Problem
The safe of multi-signature wallet;
Market fee problem;
The member of multi-signature wallet;
...

Example

[pmconrad]

Hm, interesting. This could even work if there was a mechanism for exchanging the "Primary BTC" tokens for any of the gateway tokens. Something like Bancor would be useful...

[shulthz]

Hm, interesting. This could even work if there was a mechanism for exchanging the "Primary BTC" tokens for any of the gateway tokens. Something like Bancor would be useful...

The Fiat price of BTC have a little difference in some areas.
But price of the bts/btc didn't have this difference.

[froooze]

@shulthz
The idea is good and I see three options for this:

• a smart-multi-UIA based on existing UIAs, circulating supply of different UIAs defines proportion
• increase liquidity for OPEN.BTC/GDEX.BTC and other arbitrage markets + include order matching on the first level (bots will be faster anyways)
• integrate trustless gateways

@pmconrad

Something like Bancor would be useful...

Yes, something like Bancor Protocol -> Uniswap -> MLP

[pmconrad]

The Fiat price of BTC have a little difference in some areas.

Yes, but the gateway UIAs are not the same as actual BTC. E. g. one gateway may have KYC requirements that make it unusable for some users, while others don't. Or a gateway may have technical problems and disable withdrawals. If a gateway goes broke, its UIA will probably be worth much less.

[ioBanker]

Thanks for taking time in drafting your idea.

I don’t see this working for UIAs because the concept behind UIAs is to let users create their own means of these UIA, core code should never involve itself to facilitate a proxy for gateways nor particular UIA, core should stay as enabler for gateways and should not be a part of any legal responsibilities related to gateways operations, this solution would enforce users to buy from a gateway that they might not trust when the markets of assets are merged that way.

[shulthz]

Thanks for taking time in drafting your idea.

I don’t see this working for UIAs because the concept behind UIAs is to let users create their own means of these UIA, core code should never involve itself to facilitate a proxy for gateways nor particular UIA, core should stay as enabler for gateways and should not be a part of any legal responsibilities related to gateways operations, this solution would enforce users to buy from a gateway that they might not trust when the markets of assets are merged that way.

Yes, it's the trust problem of Gateway, but this didn't mean to force the users to trade in the Primary market, it was designed for the people who like trade in the Primary market, e.g. the people trust the OPEN.btc, GDEX. btc and Bridge.btc both, the user who like trade in the Gateway market still can trade in there.

The initially thought: The BTC trade in the Primary market still is the gateway.BTC, just show the name is BTC in this trading pair, these BTC will still show the name of gateway.BTC in the Portfolio.

This market wasn't designed for the gateway only, it will have many purposes.
E.G.

1. Planning a market making contest;
2. Prepare for integrate trustless gateways or Inter-Blockchain technology;
   ...
   The problem still is :
   Trust problem of Gateway;
   Market access conditions;

or a multi-signature BTC wallet by these gateway.
Deposit BTC to Gateway BTC wallet，Gateway BTC wallet transfer BTC to multi-signature BTC wallet，then the multi-signature wallet give the issue permission to gateway which can issue the UIA？