Considering putting my spending BTC into Bitusd

[xeroc]

maybe we should consider renaming "price feed" to "shorting price" .. makes it more clear and sounds less like price fixing (which bts doesn't do)

[clout]

It's unfortunate that asset value tracking without an oracle was not feasible and a shame that data feeds seem to be a permanent fixture within the system. I'm left with doubts in terms of the reliability of a system that relies on <100 feeds from individuals. I can't imagine a billion bitUSD floating around tethered to a few feeds all averaging the same basket of bts exchange rates from a small number of crypto exchanges. It just doesn't seem reliable enough to scale.

Considering there aren't more than 100 crypto exchanges and less than 5 that exchange BTS I don't really see how your contention makes sense. How are price feeds not reliable in terms of issuing and extinguishing debt? Once created a BitAsset can be sold at whatever price the buyer is willing to purchase it at. Additionally each delegates price feed can aggregate the prices from multiple exchanges if in fact there are ever more than 101 BTS exchanges.

Not being able to sell below the median price feed seems logical.

As mentioned above this is not true. Shorts are filled at the median price feed if that is what you meant to say.

Interest is paid by the person shorting bitusd into a pool managed by the software. Is the interest paid in bitusd or bts? Surely bts? How is the interest pool then distributed to holders of bitusd? How does a holder of bitusd claim their interest?

Interest is paid in BitUSD upon transferring BitUSD holdings. The amount of interest paid is proportional the amount of BitUSD transferred as a percentage of total BitUSD in circulation.

Liquidity. I can certainly see a strong case for buy bitusd volume, no issues there. I struggle to see where sustained sell bitusd volume will come from. Shorting bitusd only makes sense given the assumption that bts will appreciate relative to bitusd, what happens when less people are making that assumption? How can we be sure that there will always be a liquid sell/short bitusd wall sitting there?

Actually the opposite phenomenon is true right now. Given the depressed price of BTS there is often more sell (or short) volume than buy volume. If people don't anticipate BTS will increase in value than there will be less shorts and less buying of BTS. If people don't want to sell their BitUSD back to short positions than those positions will create a buy wall at the feed and wait until longs sell BitUSD.

What's the deal with the 1 month term for shorts? Why such a high turnover? Does this just serve to discourage shorting? Surely you don't want this?

The 1 month term is to help with the liquidity of the market. Long positions are guaranteed to find a buyer of their BitAsset within a 30 day period. Otherwise in a bear market shorts wouldn't cover their positions and BitAsset holders wouldn't be able to easily cash out. It actually doesn't discourage shorting it just encourages more covering.

[AAdamsDL]

It's been a while since I checked in on Bitshares and it's great to see so much progress. I see a few compromises have been made on the initial idea of Bitshares X (now called Bitshares, kudos for simplifying the mess of projects).

It's unfortunate that asset value tracking without an oracle was not feasible and a shame that data feeds seem to be a permanent fixture within the system. I'm left with doubts in terms of the reliability of a system that relies on <100 feeds from individuals. I can't imagine a billion bitUSD floating around tethered to a few feeds all averaging the same basket of bts exchange rates from a small number of crypto exchanges. It just doesn't seem reliable enough to scale.

I love the progress that has been made on the market rules within Bitshares. I don't see a 'black swan event' as likely, there is enough collateral sitting on the sidelines, the engine is responsive enough (and there is sufficient liquidity??).
Not being able to sell below the median price feed seems logical.
It's great to see shorts ranked by interest. Very clever. I'm not 100% sure how the whole interest thing works exactly. Interest is paid by the person shorting bitusd into a pool managed by the software. Is the interest paid in bitusd or bts? Surely bts? How is the interest pool then distributed to holders of bitusd? How does a holder of bitusd claim their interest?

Liquidity. I can certainly see a strong case for buy bitusd volume, no issues there. I struggle to see where sustained sell bitusd volume will come from. Shorting bitusd only makes sense given the assumption that bts will appreciate relative to bitusd, what happens when less people are making that assumption? How can we be sure that there will always be a liquid sell/short bitusd wall sitting there?
What's the deal with the 1 month term for shorts? Why such a high turnover? Does this just serve to discourage shorting? Surely you don't want this?

Sorry about being so critical, I'd just like to clear up some misunderstanding I may have about the tech. I'm considering putting my hot wallet spending bitcoin into bitusd, it will be great to have the stability (and interest) of bitusd between bitcoin purchases online. Shapeshift.io will make this really easy.