Distribute Asset Market Fees to Referral Program

[OpenLedgerApp]

• initial implementation
• unit tests: added asset_rewards_test, modified create_advanced_uia

[pmconrad]

Good job, thanks!

[OpenLedgerApp]

Peter, thank you for your comments. They're quite useful!
We have updated our PR

[pmconrad]

I forgot one thing: you must add checks to proposal_create_evaluator to prevent asset_create or asset_update from being included into the blockchain before the hardfork. See proposal_operation_hardfork_visitor. Also add unit tests for this.

[abitmore]

I forgot one thing: you must add checks to proposal_create_evaluator

And need code to avoid unexpected fee schedule update. See 93110cb

[OpenLedgerApp]

And need code to avoid unexpected fee schedule update. See 93110cb

In this PR we didn’t introduce any new operations and didn’t change any logic related to fee schedule.
May i kindly ask you to elaborate a bit on your concerns ?

[OpenLedgerApp]

I forgot one thing: you must add checks to proposal_create_evaluator ...

Done.

[pmconrad]

Please add hardfork protection to prevent vesting_balance_create operation with instant_vesting_policy_initializer in

• vesting_balance_create_evaluator
• proposal_create_evaluator
• unit tests for both

[OpenLedgerApp]

Please add hardfork protection to prevent vesting_balance_create operation with instant_vesting_policy_initializer ...

Done

[oxarbitrage]

why api call get_mfs_vesting_balances and cli wallet call were removed ?

[OpenLedgerApp]

why api call get_mfs_vesting_balances and cli wallet call were removed ?

That was a temporary solution. Recently we have introduced serialization for vesting_balance_type. Now it is possible to use get_vesting_balances method to distinguish market fee sharing balance.

[thul3]

Great direction but in my opinion there are some small lacks for mass adoption.
The first issue which has been proofen in the past is the LTM.Webmasters don't pay to be able to promote an offer.Thats something which will discourage majority of webmasters to promote bitshares.
The next point is to deliver massiv traffic promoters need to be able to calculate.Since it is a refferal program it means the webmaster needs to wait a long time for his full reward.He needs some kind of guarantee that the reward won't decrease after a short time when Asset owners update their shared market fee.Will the market_fee_reward_percent asset option gives the possibility that refferals which has been already sent will get a lower reward if changed ?
I also think there should be a global consenus about the market fee reward percent since why should one Asset owner take advantage of the traffic another registrar/asset owner is getting for paying a share of 50% from trading fee.
I would also like to ask if using that solution will it be possible for registrars to recruite local webmasters to promote your assets and get a cut of the market fee's earned by their recruited webmasters ?

[pmconrad]

Please rebase on latest hardfork branch to resolve conflicts.

[MichelSantos]

Great direction but in my opinion there are some small lacks for mass adoption.

@thul3 Your comments about promotion are valuable but this isn't the right forum for that discussion because this Github issue is focused on technical implementations for BSIP-43 on Market Fee Sharing rather than on the merits of BSIP-43.

I encourage you to discuss these comments either in the discussion area for BSIP-43 or alternatively consider discussing an alternative or a supplement to BSIP-43 with the community.

[pmconrad]

Good for me, thanks!

[pmconrad]

@oxarbitrage I think your comments have been addressed. Please verify and approve if so.

[oxarbitrage]

looks great now, thank you for the hard work.

[oxarbitrage]

hold on, i think i a a problem with the commits history and hardfork date. resulting hardfork date form this pull is the old one:
https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/6b3d6ab81eab813d46a8fd57a4911099199f4036/libraries/chain/hardfork.d/CORE_1268.hf

As there is a rebase that is adding the old date again after that at: 1b9f6c9

please check.

[oxarbitrage]

thank you.