BitShares Dev Hangout : Fee Backed Assets
Episode 123, December 11, 2015
On this weeks BitShares Developer Hangout, Dan Larimer of Cryptonomex discusses UIA’s, market makers, prediction markets, Smartcoins, Fee Backed Assets (FBA), Stealth Transactions, proposed transactions, 2-Factor Authenticaion and he answers Community questions.
Create a BitShares Account
Transcript
bytemaster: First major update for those of you who may not have noticed, there's a new BitShares release with hardfork coming out for next Wednesday. This hardfork combines many of the changes we've been talking about for the past several weeks. It addressed twelve major issues and I'm sure many minor issues.
So some of the things that are new in the new hardfork is, when you cancel an order you get a refund of the order creation fee. We now prevent margin calls from executing unless the call price is less than the feed price.
We fixed the referral reward percentages. So you should have a proper balance in your referral account. The Committee can lower the redeem vesting balance fee after the hardfork. And everybody should be fine.
We also fixed numerous bugs including a significant security bug that was reported to us. I'd like to thank the Community member out there who found it, you know who you are. It would have allowed an attacker to crash a Witness node remotely.
So we fixed those bugs and numerous other small changes have been implemented. Namely API's and things like that. I think that should address a lot of the major concerns of the past. This is also the completion of the first Worker Proposal we put together which was adjusting and refunding the margin call feeds.
Please, if you're running a full node you should upgrade as soon as possible. We have notified some exchanges, but if there's a particular exchange that you care about it doesn't hurt to contact them and let them know that you care about them upgrading. So I guess that's where we are with the updates to BitShares from this week.
Now there's been a lot of discussion this week on the new concept of Fee Backed Assets (FBA) has taken off. And since we introduced that concept on the forum we have been privately contacted by a half dozen different organizations looking to invest in various fee based features.
Everything from prediction markets to bond markets to, I can't even think of them all off the top of my head, but we've got the stealth mode and we've got the incentivization of liquidity proposal. I guess that's four or five I just named right there. And there's other people that are thinking about how they might use such a model to bootstrap their business.
I would say that far more than Worker Proposals or anything else, the Fee Backed Assets is incentivizing entrepreneurs to come up with ideas, come up with features and then go and fund them and make it happen. So I'm very excited about what this means. Obviously there's more opportunities here than our current team is able to tackle, but if some of these initiatives gain strength and have enough funding to make a longer term commitment to [inaudible] we can start hiring people to grow our team. Or companies can start hiring their own team members and just hiring us for the consulting on learning and training and advice on how to design and set things up.
So there's lots of entrepreneurs out there that are looking at adding features to BitShares now that we have a model that rewards them proportional to what it is they are doing. I think that's huge. I've been analyzing why that is so and that's because there's the cost of implementing something, there's the price you can charge for it and then there's the value of it. And Worker Proposals limit the amount you can profit to the price you can charge for doing the work. Which is much smaller than the value of the work that's produced. Which means that the BitShares network needs to be proactive in trying to find people who want to work for hire. They're not going to find entrepreneurs.
Entrepreneurs care about, "What's the value of this thing that I can produce>? I'll raise the money to build it and I'll collect the difference between the cost to get it built and the value of the feature". And the other benefit of this process is entrepreneurs are people who recognize the value in something that other people don't' see and then they take action to realize that value.
As a blockchain and Worker Proposals, 99.9% of people don't see the value in features. You know people don't' see the value in Stealth, they don't see the value in the Bond Market or the Prediction Market or whatnot. But everyone sees the value in something. And so when we try to get consensus on what we should fund via dilution the vast majority of the people aren't going to see the value in it and so you can't consensus in the network. You can't advance.
But by privatizing the rewards of the success of the feature, the BitShares holders offset the risk, they don't need to get diluted and entrepreneurs have crazy incentive to take whatever idea they were thinking about building as their own blockchain and instead build it on BitShares. So they get the benefit of all of the things BitShares can do. They get the network effect of BitShares, but they still get all the profits they would have expected to get from launching their own blockchain.
Which means that many of these features now have million dollar bounties on them, if you make the assumption that a Fee Backed Asset has a value similar to some of these small proof of concept blockchains that exist. I think this is a very interesting development for BitShares. It's very exciting to see all of the people thinking about how they can use this model to make things happen.
So I'd like to thank onceuponatime for stepping up and kick-starting the idea and everyone else who's since contributed to the ideas and discussions on the forums. That said, are there any particular questions that people are interested in?
fuzzy: Would you like to explain a little bit for anybody who's missed any of this, what exactly onceuponatime stepped up to do with the Stealth feature?
bytemaster: Sure there's a lot of debate about which features to do and onceuponatime felt so strongly about the need for privacy and he's not alone, but he is willing to actually put up the $45,000 it's going to take to get the user interface and all of the cryptographic features into the wallet so that people can actually take advantage of a feature the blockchain already supports.
Even though the blockchain supports stealth confidential transactions, the total supply of assets held in such a manner is only a couple thousand BTS. That's because most users aren't user the command line wallet. I don't even use the command line wallet. So it's a feature that's there, it just needs to be exposed through the user interface. In order to justify spending the money on it people expect some kind of reward. And so the idea I suggested to onceuponatime was that we could reallocate a percentage of the transaction fees generated by people actually using the new feature to generate a return on his investment.
He really seemed to like that and that's of course spawned lots of discussion about well, lots of people would love to get a cut of those fees as well, which opened up the idea of crowdfunding and all of the benefits that has means that a single person doesn't need to take on 100% of the risk. We can divide up the future revenue stream among many people who contribute money. And that really started to excite people because it allowed for equal opportunity.
So a lot of discussion has gone on in the past couple of weeks about how such a Fee Backed Asset would work, what are the legal considerations of a Fee Backed Asset and what's the best approach for onceuponatime. Because he's the one that's going to be paying for the feature, he ultimately gets to decide how he wants to handle it. But I think the concepts are generally useful for everyone here to understand and for new entrepreneurs to understand.
I'd like to actually get into that for a second. The biggest concern with any crowdfunding initiative or any revenue sharing scheme is whether or not it is a security and a regulated activity and is the person who's selling such an asset at risk of being fined or having their profits taken from the SEC and other regulators. So there's a working paper produced by Swan and some of the biggest law firms in the cryptocurrency space, like Perkins Coie and so on.
And it really dug into the details about what makes something a security. And a lot of that paper inspired a lot of the features in BitShares 2.0. Things like making sure that the value of an asset is not derived by the work of others or that the people who own it are in partial control of it's future value. So the concept of membership organizations and self-governing systems were deemed by the Swan paper as being unlikely to be considered a security.
Because you have to have lots of different factors simultaneously to be a security. Just because it's an investment opportunity doesn't mean it's a security. Just because you get a return on investment, just because it looks like a share and it can trade and it's got volatility, all of those things don't make something a security. It's a combination of factors and the single biggest factor in my opinion is whether or not the value of the asset depends upon the future work of someone else.
And in the case of a Fee Backed Asset, so there's two cases here, if you crowdfund something you're pulling money into the hands of one person, that's one characteristics of a security. And that person has to produce something and the future value whatever it is that person gave you, a token or whatever depends upon them doing something.
However if someone does something and then sells it, that's not a security because it's already done, there is no need for them to take further action of the thing they're selling to have value. So, how that applies to Fee Backed Assets, if someone funds a feature [and] as part of that feature is a system or it creates an asset that they own 100% of and the fees buy that asset back from them to reimburse them for the feature, that person has not issued a security and they haven't sold it to anyone, they've just created a system a system where they get a refund from the fees.
If they sell part of that asset to private individuals, that is also not issuing a security because it's not a public issuing. Like someone starts a company and they got private investors, you're not issuing a security from a regulatory perspective. It's only when you go to the public and you try to sell to the public. But in this case, selling the asset after the feature exist, it's no longer an asset backed by the promise of onceuponatime or Cryptonomex or anyone else to do something. It's just an asset, like Bitcoin or BitShares that exist and does something and people buy it for the characteristics that it has built in.
Which means that onceuponatime could sell his stake in this feature in the open market on BitShares without being the one selling a security, because the proceeds of the sale aren't being pooled to do some common enterprise. They're profit for him personally and he gets to keep it and there's no expectation of him to do anything else.
So this gives you a example. You fund something, you build it and after you build it then you sell the token and the tokens value is backed by the revenue stream of the actual use of the feature. That system is in my opinion not a security. Of course I'm not a lawyer, go talk to lawyers and draw your own opinions. But the best I can tell, the risk are so low the way Cryptonomex will probably structure most of our future Worker Proposals will be very similar.
If we're going to fund a feature we're going to get permission on the blockchain to charge whatever fees we want to collect for the feature. And if we estimate that it sounds good and there's sufficient demand for the feature then we will implement it and sell the token rather than charging a Worker Proposals of a fixed dollar cost and so on and so forth.
We're very excited about the potential for this mode of operation, it incentivizes us and others. So it's a great development in the BitShares Community.
fuzzy: Have you considered the potential for a Worker Proposal to kind of like pay for, let's say it requires $10,000 to build this feature coin. A Worker Proposal would give 50% of that and if it's voted in and that amount is paid, 50% of those tokens would be sharedropped on a Community. Have you guys considered anything like that, kind of like the potential for a hybrid type version of this so it allows the Worker Proposal to cover some of it and private investors to do the same as well. Or is there going to be an issue with that?
bytemaster: The hybrid approach is the network profits as the feature is used and it buys back the BitShares. That is the original model and it suffers from the fact that getting everyone to agree on that 50% funding is just as difficult as getting them to agree to 100% funding. You might be able to get them to agree to 1% funding because that minimizes the amount of dilution required to a point where most people think, "well yeah I can see it being 1% successful", right.
So that's the biggest challenge. I think as a whole the Community is better off using free market approaches rather than socialized approaches. We should reserve the Worker Proposals for goods and things that cannot be privatized. An example is general improvements to the BitShares wallet. General bug fixes and API's. That type of work is not rewarded, that's infrastructure, that's low level. It's not new features, it's not a profit center it's just the cost of doing business. Which is why I [submitted] a Worker Proposal for svk to be an independent developer constantly improving the GUI for BitShares.
We need to incentivize active development for BitShares, because otherwise the incentives in the system are for Cryptonomex to work on what's profitable for us, you know what we get paid for, and what we get paid for is not necessarily the mundane stuff that benefits BitShares. So we need to align the incentives properly so that we can all move forward, make rational profitable decisions.
brindleswan: What about partially built features that don't require but could take advantage of future work. As long as the future work is not promised we're still good on not being considered a security?
bytemaster: Correct. So an example here is, we build the feature for Stealth Transfers into the GUI, that feature benefits from advertising of the feature, but anyone can advertise the feature. Anyone who owns any stake in the use of the feature can go and then advertise it. So it's value is not dependent solely on the work of others.
DataSecurityNode: Is there a place where there is documentation to read up on this? Exactly how an FBA would work?
bytemaster: So far it's all just been discussions in the forum about how it would work. But now that we've had lots of discussions it's time to formalize the structure to describe for new people coming into the system how it works, how they can benefit,what types of things this can be used for. This Mumble session is sort of a starting point where we start to describe it for people in an easy to consume format. But I would love to see the idea broken down into a series of blog post.
And to some extent it's kind of like an Ethereum contract where you can write your own contract and get paid when people use it. The difference is with Ethereum I can take your contract, copy it, modify it, remove the reward that you get and then everyone will use mine. In BitShares you write the contract it gets voted on and the Community collectively enforces that you get compensated for your contract because you're the one that built it first. We don't need two versions of essentially the same thing and we recognize the importance of rewarding those who funded it with the proceeds of it.
So that's an incentive to build your smart contracts on BitShares versus Ethereum, because you can actually corner a particular feature set on the BitShares network and grow. Whereas if you did the same thing with an Ethereum contract, after you produce it anyone can take it and use it.
fuzzy: Would it be more expensive to do this on BitShares as opposed to Ethereum?
bytemaster: Development cost? No. I can take any Ethereum contract that people are excited about and I can write something in a similar amount of code and have it deployed on BitShares.
DataSecurityNode: Is any portion of fees going to the network for FBA's?
bytemaster: Yes the network is not giving everything away. We wouldn't allow a feature on the network where the network didn't get a cut or the network would get spammed by the issuer of that feature. So the network was always getting a cut, so in the case of onceuponatime's proposal for Stealth Transfers, the network will get 20% of every Stealth Transfer fee paid and his Fee Backed Asset would get 80% for those features.
And that's very similar to how all the other fees in the system, 20% goes to the network and 80% goes to the referrer. So you can think of the feature creator as being the referrer to the network for some of these features. In the case of the market making incentivization proposal which I think I'd like to address again this week, because there's been a lot more discussion and a lot better understanding on my part and others in as far as how it would work, what it's benefits are and how it compares to other things.
But in that case the fee charged in the incentivization program is a percentage of the rewards given to the market makers. That's a fee that the network doesn't get today, it's currently going to the issuers. So rather than reallocating or reducing the fees the BitShares network's getting we're just profit sharing for an asset issuer. And as a result there's going to be more transactions, more volume, more trading and more users in BitShares. All those users, all those trades, they're still paying the order creation fee which goes to the network and/or the referrers. And that's a couple cents per order, but in volume the network is making money the more users that come in.
And the network could have never have made money off of market fees. So one of the features that people have asked and I tend to agree with is that if you take a user issued asset and it's trading against BTS, the incentive, the fee that any market fee BTS charges, instead of that going to the BitShares network it should go to the issuer of the asset. Because they created an asset that's now trading against BitShares. And even the rate when you're trading a user issued asset against BitShares it should be set by the issuer of the asset and not by the BitShares network / Committee.
Because if you're an exchange like say Poloniex and they wanted to move their orderbook onto BitShares for whatever reason, they'd only get half the fees because their not getting the BitShares side of the equation any more. The BitShares network as a whole wants to make sure that exchanges don't take a loss by moving onto the BitShares network. And so when we go to incentivize liquidity it's really the issuers who we are trying to incentivize liquidity in their assets so they can increase the adoption of their asset, because adoption if proportional to liquidity and in the end they make it up in volume.
You might get a smaller cut of your trading fees but you'd have an order of magnitude more trading fees than you would have had. You've dramatically increased your chances and your ability to compete against the competing assets that are doing the same thing. How do you decide whether you're going to trade BTC, OPENBTC or DATABTC? You go to whichever one has the most liquidity for trading against BitShares.
So there's a lot of stuff to consider about how we want to encourage issuers. Issuers are just as important as users when it comes to referrals. In fact issuers are taking a bigger risk and they are actually more important than the referral program because they're the ones that go out there and they have to market and sell their asset or there's no point to a business based around issuing the asset.
So we really want to focus on incentivizing and rewarding those particular users. We talked about allocating those fees to the referral program and so the solution I proposed that the issuer of an asset in the network could divide it somehow. We don't want to say it all goes to the referral program or it all goes to the issuer. We can make that a tunable parameter which gives the Committee the opportunity to change that over time.
fuzzy: Have you guys considered as far as any of these variables that could be changed by the Committee, do you guys see any potential decisions in the future that might affect Fee Backed Assets, that people who are considering Fee Backed Assets would keep their eyes on it at any given juncture?
bytemaster: All kinds of things can affect Fee Backed Assets. Anything that negatively impacts BitShares, negatively affects Fee Backed Assets on BitShares. I would look at the Fee Backed Assets as having some risk exposure to the Committee. Now the Committee is incentivized to make BitShares a welcome warm place for entrepreneurs. If BitShares develops a reputation of the Committee taking actions that completely undermine entrepreneurs that are building on BitShares future entrepreneurs won't build on it. And those that are here might leave. It's kind of like governments trying to offer tax incentives for businesses to build in their district.
We need to offer incentives for entrepreneurs to come and stay and we don't want to do anything that would cause them to leave. So as long as the Committee and the people voting for them recognize that any money that BitShares network might claim for itself by changing the rules to steal money from the people after they've invested in the future, that might generate some fees for BitShares holders but it ultimately undermines the future of BitShares. And the fees you collect by stealing that money or that revenue stream through a Committee action don't justify it. The cost are too high in terms of future losses.
Governments sometimes do stupid things where they raise taxes thinking they'll get more income and then businesses leave and they end up with less income. That's effectively what would happen if the Committee increased fees too high or tried to reallocate the percentages. Because that's the same thing as increasing the tax of building your business on BitShares.
As long as we're aware of that we will try to keep the network fees as low as possible, recognizing that the value of BitShares will probably appreciate more as a result of adoption than as a result of fees being burned.
This week I posted a How-To use the current BitShares system for Prediction Markets. A prediction market uses most of the same infrastructure as a bitAsset with the primary difference being that there is no need for a price feed and that there is no possibility of their being insufficient collateral because you post the maximum that you could lose as collateral.
So the issuer of the asset can do a global force settle which is like triggering a manual black swan event. Which then allows the participants in the prediction market to settle at the settlement price after the event has occurred. That post is on the forum. I'm sure someone will find the link and post it here.
The issue that was brought up by puppies is, if an asset cannot be reused then the issuer will need to recover at least the cost of issuing the asset per event. So it seems as if we're caught between preventing spam and promoting use. I would state it another way. Most assets you can register for $5. If you're not expecting to make at least $5 in trading fees, it's not a big enough prediction market to be worth considering. There won't be enough liquidity in the market to be worth promoting.
So prediction market assets should be designed and marketed towards things you can actually get lots of people involved in and generate significant volume. And the event should be unique enough that the symbols for each event, you wouldn't want to reuse the same symbol if you're going to do an election. It's going to be Republican2016, you're not going to reuse Republican2016 for something else in the future. That type of thing there's no need to rename or reuse a prediction market. After the even has occurred, it's occurred.
So I'd be interested in seeing examples of where you'd want to reuse a particular token. The other issue we have with reissuing tokens is that when the event occurs we don't go and find everyone that's got the asset anywhere and instantly convert them. Users can come along and convert and claim their winnings at their own pace.
That's done for two reasons. One we can't necessarily resolve all smart contracts. We don't know who's the ultimate owner of these assets is going to be. If I time the outcome of the election to some other contract, whether it's a loan or a escrow or some other thing is going on on the network. It's not possible to just swap it out and replace. We have to wait until the users get the asset and they say, "I'd like to convert it".
And it's also one of scalability. If you have assets that are backed by assets that are backed by assets or the number of things that would have to change at one point in time would be too much. It's better to break it up over time.
And third is scale. If you have a million users and you're trying to do this settlement and distribution, that's going to cost a lot more than if you only have ten. And so by dividing up over multiple transactions you're getting fees for every time someone goes and settles. The network collects fees proportional to the complexity involved with redeeming the asset.
All said, there's no guarantee that you're going to be able to get everyone to redeem the assets so that you can reuse the token. So the real question is not about reusing the token, it's about reusing a name or symbol. And I think that is a broader thing. Tokens under the hood are assigned unique numbers and those numbers can never be reused. But it may be possible to allow someone to rename a token. The problem with renaming tokens is one of confusing market participants. You know, "I thought I had some FISTBUMP's in my wallet but now I've got some ORGASM's", I don't know.
If something changes it's name how do the participants know you're going to confuse users. So consistency in naming over time is an important usability consideration. I'd like to see a really good example of a name for an asset that we would like to reuse through multiple prediction events.
fuzzy: Well FISTBUMP's turning into ORGASM's overnight certainly would probably cause some problems. So are you talking about in this example you're giving as far as Republicans2016, let's say I issue a coin and it's Republicans2016, if you believe that they're going to win you send to this address. If you believe their not going to win the Presidential election then send it to this [other] address?
bytemaster: No it works more like, if you think their going to win you buy it. If you think they're going to lose you borrow it and sell it. When it comes time to settle, it's either going to be worth nothing or it's going to be worth $1. So you know the guaranteed range and so if you bought and it's a 50/50 chance then you can sell it for 50 cents and either it goes up to $1 or it goes down to zero. And you want to be on the right side of that trade and you double your money.
fuzzy: It will be cool to see where this evolves to. In terms of the Fee Backed Assets aspect were there any of these projects that you were able to talk about or are all of these pretty much in the shadows kind of thing like held back and not really allowed to be discussed in the Community.
bytemaster: I haven't signed any NDA's or agreed to keep anything secret. I guess a lot of the stuff has already been discussed in the Community. Someone wants to implement the Poloniex style lending and leverage system. That's one thing we're looking at. Someone else is interested in a prediction market system like Augur. There's so many I can't even think about them right now.
All of things are things that we've discussed on the forum in the past, they're ideas that some people like and they will be discussed thoroughly in public prior to funding commencing. Because the first step here is getting permission from the stakeholders of BitShares to implement the feature on the blockchain. Once you get permission to do so, and the way we gauge that is based on funding levels.
If you can get more support for your feature then the refund Worker Proposal, the Worker Proposal the just returns the money to the blockchain, if you get more support than that threshold then we assume the feature is accepted by the Community. So if you don't like some of these features [inaudible] Worker Proposals you can vote for or against them. Be proactive and to a large extent the proxy voters they will be the ones making the decision of what features come and go. So pay attention to who your proxies are. Proxies evaluate the proposals and consider them.
Community: May an existing UIA be configured to enable a feed and where should I point Dev's in order to integrate a specific UIA into other projects?
bytemaster: You can have privatized bitAssets which is a user issued asset that is a smartcoin. Those can be created and configured to have feeds. If they're not a smartcoin then you don't get feeds. I don't know what the feed would be used for with a regular UIA. It is possible to publish data into the blockchain through custom operations and if that's all you want to do then, yes that's also possible. And you can publish price feeds that way but it won't be used by the system because feeds are only used for smartcoins at this point in time.
I will add that there is a type of feed which you can publish for all user issued assets and that's the core exchange rate. This is the exchange rate at which the fee pool converts your user issued asset to BitShares. That's not necessarily representative of the value of the user issued asset because you can either charge it the same premium or offer a discount to the actual value, but yes that is a way that you can publish price information about your asset that is actually used by the blockchain.
So I'm going to answer another question [from the forum]. Where do you see the prediction market evolving? Will the front end be in the wallet or do you expect third-parties to create easy to use front-ends? Augur obviously thinks it's a huge market.
I think it is a huge market. I think that it's a market that is as huge as whoever can get behind marketing it and hosting it. It's an opportunity to create a custom interface that is better than our native wallet. The interface created for this thing can ... the reason why it's a huge market is this, you crate trading pairs that don't exist anywhere else. You give a price for speculators to come and trade and make money on things that they can't make money on any where else. And that is absolutely huge.
Xeldal: Will a Windows CLI full node be provided for the latest release?
bytemaster: I'll ask Dan and Eric to produce one. They have nightly builds that should have it already. But yeah I would expect that it would have one eventually.
Community: So if I own asset XYZ, will name XYZ be available for the smartcoin?
bytemaster: No, there's one flat namespace. All assets smartcoin, regular or otherwise have one name. So you can't have both XYZ and an XYZ smartcoin. At the time you create the you have to pick whether or not it's going to be a smartcoin and you can't go back.
fuzzy: Could they be inter-operable in the future? For instance to upgrade to a smartcoin.
bytemaster: We could potentially make them inter-operable assuming the current supply is zero. Once you've actually issued the token and you've got a non-zero supply you can't convert it to a smartcoin. But that's basically because it has to be backed if you're going to upgrade it.
OldDPOS: What is the settlement order if everyone has the same collateral?
bytemaster: Prediction markets work like black swan events. Everyone who's short, basically borrowed it, they get immediately settled at the price that's determined by the judge or basically the issuer. So they get part of their collateral back or none of their collateral back, depending upon whether or not they won or lost. Everyone else can request settlement just like you do with forced settlement and then they get settled at the same settlement price. It doesn't matter which order you come or go, everyone's getting the same price.
ingenesist: I'd like to ask about any updates or progress on I guess any third-parties providing hosted wallets with 2-Factor Authentication where you can point a newbie to and they wouldn't have to worry about backing up their keys or having a secure computer themselves.
bytemaster: We've been working on stuff behind the scenes for server side hosting of wallets and then when you combine that with the built in multi-sig, there's some work that needs to be done in the user interface for proposed transactions. That's a feature that we'll need to get funded somehow. There's a lot of work involved in displaying, representing all of that. So we'll have to figure out how to fund the proposed transactions.
But once you can do that then on your phone or on your desktop you propose a transaction and on your phone you can confirm it or you propose and you have a family member confirm it. There's all kinds of things you can do once the user interface supports the proposed transactions. But for the simple case of being able to login from any computer having to worry about backing up, as long as you remember your username and password you should have access to your wallet, we are actively working on that.
This transcript was made possible by the following BitShares Community members donations :
onceuponatime (1000 BTS)
alohacs (1000 BTS)
thera (500 BTS + 1000 SMILE)
bitbuckster (1000 BTS)
clayop (1000 BTS)
dele-puppy (1000 BTS)
ian (1000 BTS)
roadscape (1000 BTS)
fuzzy (300 BTS)
donkeypong (1000 BTS)
btswolf (1000 BTS)
Thank you!