With both Hive and Bitshares being based on Graphene, more robust links/gateways between the two would be very beneficial adding substantially to the web of input and output avenues.
As one example xBTS can be seen here: https://ex.xbts.io/market/XBTSX.HIVE_BTS For those that have not tried Bitshares, looking at that market is really this simple:
Hive = xBTS.Hive (xBTS is the gateway providing deposit/withdraw services)
BTS = BTS native chain token
Utilizing that gateway will allow you to go from Hive to BTS to endless other options such as smartcoins, stable coins, liquidity pools etc... xBTS also offers Hive.USDT which makes it easy to get on/off chain.
Endless possibilities when blockchains start to work together on common goals.
I'm a big proponent of Hive bridges and have been for a long time. Where we need to be careful is with liquidity. If there's one thing bridges need to be effective (other than security, I mean), it's liquidity. And the more bridges you build, the more liquidity you need for each of them. Right now we have a few bridges either functional or soon to become operational, and neither of them has enough liquidity to support significant volumes and transaction sizes.
Check out the Liquidity pools BTS have come out with: https://docs.bitshares.build/docs/liquidity-pools/liquidity-pools-intro/
The relative ease of creating a bridge on BTS is why I am bullish to connect Hive and BTS more robustly. Both are built on Graphene and would complement each other vs compete.
Yep, the problem remains the same. If there was a BTS/HIVE LP or whatever, you need both BTS and HIVE in that LP to make it deep enough. Probably most people would want to move from BTS to something else, which means an additional step that doesn't exist in the case of a BTC-HIVE bridge or even a BNB-HIVE.
Anyway, from what I know, BTS is supported on Hive-Engine in its wrapped form, as are all or most Graphene-based coins. Having liquidity or volume is a different matter.