Major factor for the BTS price now and in the future [my take]

[fuzzy]

To clarify, I do remember the shorting issue and thought it made it into one of the recent releases ..

Also I'd like to remark that even even though BitShares takes almost 100% of my spare time, it has gotten very difficult to follow every discussion AND contribute where possible ..

IMHO, things are moving forward alot faster than 9 months ago .. the baby is maturing as is the community ..
!

i can agree with this 100%

[liondani]

less and less people short BTA now

yes, because they are almost bankrupt(?)... (ironically the best supporters)

[BTSdac]

Now shorted BTA should been covered in one month , it is so short . many people think BTS is bullish in future , but  cannot know in one month . so there only a few people to short BTA.  can we introduce one month short ,  there month short  ,six month short. one year short .  it mean cover the short in one,there ,six twelve months respectively. and there is a required MIN yield per type of short
For example,
Short type                     Cover deadline          required MIN yield             required MIN collateral
one month short            in one month                      0%                                         300%
there month short          in there month                   4%                                         300%
six month short              in six  month                       8%                                        400%
twelve month short        in twelve month                  16%                                       400%

now translation queue according to yield.
so
queue yield for queue =Yield supply by shorter -required MIN yield

Yield harvesting means that the yield provided by the short does not necessarily benefit the long even though the long does suffer from this change because of lower volume on the BitAsset/BTS exchange (due to less frequent forced turnover) and an inability to guarantee exiting into BTS in 1 month. The increased minimum collateral also doesn't protect against undercollateralization risk much because the margin call would still be the same. So in short, all this does is add unnecessary disadvantages to shorts to compensate for the huge advantage it provides for longer terms, but it does not provide any advantages to the long even though it causes huge disadvantages to the long.

BTS system is new system ,so we try find the similar system in real world ,you know short BTA much much similar with lend money from bank with collateral bts
as the real bank , we can lend money for different period with  different   yield ,so it is reasonable .

I don't think it is a good idea to have different term lengths within a given BitAsset/BTS market. It is fine if a different BitAsset variant had a different term length (for example the current BitUSD could be BitUSD-30 and we could have another asset BitUSD-90 which had term lengths of 3 months; these two BitUSDs would of course not be fungible with one another), but within a single BitAsset I think it is better for the terms to be the same. We can then argue whether the standard BitAssets we have today should have a term length of 30 days or if we should extend it a little. Personally, I think 30 days is fine.

yes it maybe a methods , but as you said, they be fungible with one another

In fact, when we start discussing different term lengths, I think what we really should be talking about are bond markets. There can be 1-month BitUSD bonds, 3-month BitUSD bonds, 6-month BitUSD bonds, etc. Then by selling it for some price less than its nominal value to someone going long, it effectively sets the interest rate in a way that cannot be harvested like yield can. So, the people who want to speculate on USD/BTS price over the long term would use the bond market, but people who want cryptocash (perhaps with no to little yield) would want BitUSD with a short 30-day term limit to ensure a nice market peg.

Also keep in mind that it is already possible today to effectively extend your term length by using a larger effective collateral. That is what this post was all about. In that post I discussed how it was possible to effectively have three consecutive terms without realizing losses (given certain assumptions like the price never dropping more than 33% within a 30 day period) until the end of the third term. If I assume 7 days is allocated for finding the right opportunity to self-short at 0% interest (meaning I assume it is possible to find the market in a state where there are no BitUSD sell orders at or below the price feed within a 7 day window) then that means in the worst case I have 23 days per each term. If I want 4 consecutive terms to allow for 92 consecutive days (three months) without realizing losses, I need to choose N = 3 (see my linked post) which gives a p_3 = 20% and means that I can only (conservatively) short sell at most 10% of the value of my BTS. Essentially this means that my effective collateral (BTS I have allocated for this purpose and cannot be used for other purposes) is not a little over 200% (nearly all in collateral) but rather 1000% collateral (200% in collateral and 800% held on the side for roll overs). If by the end of the third month I can auto-cover at the price feed which is at a price (in BitUSD/BTS) that is larger than the price I initially shorted at (3 months prior), then I will gain a BTS profit.

yes people can extend their short , but they need more bts to finish it , can the process is a little complex。it would block some of people to short BTA because they don`t want to operate per week or months.
and also ,now we can saw ,there are a problem in our marketing if we open the marketing ,we lack BTA now, 
less and less people short BTA now

[BTSdac]

Now shorted BTA should been covered in one month , it is so short . many people think BTS is bullish in future , but  cannot know in one month . so there only a few people to short BTA.  can we introduce one month short ,  there month short  ,six month short. one year short .  it mean cover the short in one,there ,six twelve months respectively. and there is a required MIN yield per type of short
For example,
Short type                     Cover deadline          required MIN yield             required MIN collateral
one month short            in one month                      0%                                         300%
there month short          in there month                   4%                                         300%
six month short              in six  month                       8%                                        400%
twelve month short        in twelve month                  16%                                       400%

now translation queue according to yield.
so
queue yield for queue =Yield supply by shorter -required MIN yield

it fall form 0.3 CNY to 0.06 CNY, just in half a year.
it is hard to say what will happen in a year. even 10 times of collateral will not enough. But if collateral is too much, people have no interest to short.

you can cover you short in any time.

[Helikopterben]

The current 300% collateral (200% from shorts) puts the shorts in unnecessarily unfair position.

 

Perhaps circuit breakers could be used to protect markets from not being able to cover all margin calls in a timely manner if margin requirements are reduced.  If the market falls X percentage in X period of time, then halt trading for X period of time to sort out all margin calls and resume trading after X period of time.  Force shorts who are within X percentage of margin call to go ahead and cover at market before trading is resumed.  If the market goes into panic mode, then perhaps the system can force that to happen in an orderly fashion with circuit breakers.   

As for the 30 day forced cover... I would like to see this rule extremely relaxed if not completely eliminated.  Maybe it could be phased out by changing the rule from 30 to 60 to 90 to 180 to 360 over time.  Depending on how that goes, we could possibly leave the rule at 360 days or 720 days or higher... just a thought.

IMO, futures and options markets are the closest model to look at for how to replicate a collateralized, leverage-based financial market onto a decentralized format.  In fact, these legacy markets work good-enough except for the problem of trust, which blockchain technology is intended to solve.  The user experience of these legacy markets don't have to be replicated exactly (and probably can't be) but these legacy systems will definitely provide a guide as to how it should be done... and so far I believe bitshares is close to getting the right formula, but as for now, short sellers liquidity providers are definitely being unfairly disadgvantaged.

[xiahui135]

Now shorted BTA should been covered in one month , it is so short . many people think BTS is bullish in future , but  cannot know in one month . so there only a few people to short BTA.  can we introduce one month short ,  there month short  ,six month short. one year short .  it mean cover the short in one,there ,six twelve months respectively. and there is a required MIN yield per type of short
For example,
Short type                     Cover deadline          required MIN yield             required MIN collateral
one month short            in one month                      0%                                         300%
there month short          in there month                   4%                                         300%
six month short              in six  month                       8%                                        400%
twelve month short        in twelve month                  16%                                       400%

now translation queue according to yield.
so
queue yield for queue =Yield supply by shorter -required MIN yield

it fall form 0.3 CNY to 0.06 CNY, just in half a year.
it is hard to say what will happen in a year. even 10 times of collateral will not enough. But if collateral is too much, people have no interest to short.

[arhag]

Now shorted BTA should been covered in one month , it is so short . many people think BTS is bullish in future , but  cannot know in one month . so there only a few people to short BTA.  can we introduce one month short ,  there month short  ,six month short. one year short .  it mean cover the short in one,there ,six twelve months respectively. and there is a required MIN yield per type of short
For example,
Short type                     Cover deadline          required MIN yield             required MIN collateral
one month short            in one month                      0%                                         300%
there month short          in there month                   4%                                         300%
six month short              in six  month                       8%                                        400%
twelve month short        in twelve month                  16%                                       400%

now translation queue according to yield.
so
queue yield for queue =Yield supply by shorter -required MIN yield

Yield harvesting means that the yield provided by the short does not necessarily benefit the long even though the long does suffer from this change because of lower volume on the BitAsset/BTS exchange (due to less frequent forced turnover) and an inability to guarantee exiting into BTS in 1 month. The increased minimum collateral also doesn't protect against undercollateralization risk much because the margin call would still be the same. So in short, all this does is add unnecessary disadvantages to shorts to compensate for the huge advantage it provides for longer terms, but it does not provide any advantages to the long even though it causes huge disadvantages to the long.

I don't think it is a good idea to have different term lengths within a given BitAsset/BTS market. It is fine if a different BitAsset variant had a different term length (for example the current BitUSD could be BitUSD-30 and we could have another asset BitUSD-90 which had term lengths of 3 months; these two BitUSDs would of course not be fungible with one another), but within a single BitAsset I think it is better for the terms to be the same. We can then argue whether the standard BitAssets we have today should have a term length of 30 days or if we should extend it a little. Personally, I think 30 days is fine.

In fact, when we start discussing different term lengths, I think what we really should be talking about are bond markets. There can be 1-month BitUSD bonds, 3-month BitUSD bonds, 6-month BitUSD bonds, etc. Then by selling it for some price less than its nominal value to someone going long, it effectively sets the interest rate in a way that cannot be harvested like yield can. So, the people who want to speculate on USD/BTS price over the long term would use the bond market, but people who want cryptocash (perhaps with no to little yield) would want BitUSD with a short 30-day term limit to ensure a nice market peg.

Also keep in mind that it is already possible today to effectively extend your term length by using a larger effective collateral. That is what this post was all about. In that post I discussed how it was possible to effectively have three consecutive terms without realizing losses (given certain assumptions like the price never dropping more than 33% within a 30 day period) until the end of the third term. If I assume 7 days is allocated for finding the right opportunity to self-short at 0% interest (meaning I assume it is possible to find the market in a state where there are no BitUSD sell orders at or below the price feed within a 7 day window) then that means in the worst case I have 23 days per each term. If I want 4 consecutive terms to allow for 92 consecutive days (three months) without realizing losses, I need to choose N = 3 (see my linked post) which gives a p_3 = 20% and means that I can only (conservatively) short sell at most 10% of the value of my BTS. Essentially this means that my effective collateral (BTS I have allocated for this purpose and cannot be used for other purposes) is not a little over 200% (nearly all in collateral) but rather 1000% collateral (200% in collateral and 800% held on the side for roll overs). If by the end of the third month I can auto-cover at the price feed which is at a price (in BitUSD/BTS) that is larger than the price I initially shorted at (3 months prior), then I will gain a BTS profit.

[liondani]

Now shorted BTA should been covered in one month , it is so short . many people think BTS is bullish in future , but  cannot know in one month . so there only a few people to short BTA.  can we introduce one month short ,  there month short  ,six month short. one year short .  it mean cover the short in one,there ,six twelve months respectively. and there is a required MIN yield per type of short
For example,
Short type                     Cover deadline          required MIN yield             required MIN collateral
one month short            in one month                      0%                                         300%
there month short          in there month                   4%                                         300%
six month short              in six  month                       8%                                        400%
twelve month short        in twelve month                  16%                                       400%

now translation queue according to yield.
so
queue yield for queue =Yield supply by shorter -required MIN yield

+5
That proposal makes absolute sense to me!

Sent from my ALCATEL ONE TOUCH 997D

[BTSdac]

Now shorted BTA should been covered in one month , it is so short . many people think BTS is bullish in future , but  cannot know in one month . so there only a few people to short BTA.  can we introduce one month short ,  there month short  ,six month short. one year short .  it mean cover the short in one,there ,six twelve months respectively. and there is a required MIN yield per type of short
For example,
Short type                     Cover deadline          required MIN yield             required MIN collateral
one month short            in one month                      0%                                         300%
there month short          in there month                   4%                                         300%
six month short              in six  month                       8%                                        400%
twelve month short        in twelve month                  16%                                       400%

now translation queue according to yield.
so
queue yield for queue =Yield supply by shorter -required MIN yield

[arhag]

I suggest 200% total collateral and margin call triggered by price movement of as little as 15% from shorting price.

I'm fine with this. It still provides more than 40% sudden drop protection against undercollateralization (compared to the current 50%). If the 200% minimum initial collateral is used, margin calls happen when the price (in BitAsset/BTS) drops by 15% from initial shorting price (compared to current 33%). To recover the current 33% drop margin call protection, one would simply need to provide an initial collateral percentage a little higher than the minimum (253% rather than 200%, but that is still better than 300%)

[zerosum]

Does you margin call include a 5% penalty? or would it come for "free"?

It is up for discussion...but the same way it works currently - the 5% penalty is somewhat independent of the margin call trigger price - as  it is subtracted (or not) after the margin call is triggered and even after the order is filled.

I can see the argument for removing/reducing it though. ...and it is not essential for system security, it is more of a (smallish ?) income stream for the system.

[xeroc]

Does you margin call include a 5% penalty? or would it come for "free"?

[zerosum]

OK. A lot of opinions on ' forum addictiveness' , 'PR of silence' is the best / worst thing ever, Xeroc's knowledge of every possible bug; plus a healthy dose of wildpigs wisdom on wide range of subjects - from 'people will short more if they are not afraid of bugs' to 'devs will respond to development issues (i.e. not like the OP post, where no such issues were raised)'...

Anyone with opinion on the main issue (aka between the 'short version' tags) in the OP?

If shorts are gonna have a wonderful life according to your improvement  , and in the mean time there is still no significant increase in adoption of BitAssets , what will happen then ?

Will that be just like when BTA was first brought online last year and those BTA are produced more than market demand ?

Did you bother to read the OP wildpig?
If yes, how did you come to that conclusion?
Shorts will not have wonderful life - they will have in some regards  more miserable life than now! But their misery will serve the purpose to secure the BTS system not just make shorts life  worse in unnecessary ways and make the BTS system worse at the same time.

I suggest 200% total collateral and margin call triggered by price movement of as little as 15% from shorting price. My solution is not in the OP as I do not intended this as a to push for my solution here. There are other solutions that are even better, but need more code changes, btw.

[btswildpig]

OK. A lot of opinions on ' forum addictiveness' , 'PR of silence' is the best / worst thing ever, Xeroc's knowledge of every possible bug; plus a healthy dose of wildpigs wisdom on wide range of subjects - from 'people will short more if they are not afraid of bugs' to 'devs will respond to development issues (i.e. not like the OP post, where no such issues were raised)'...

Anyone with opinion on the main issue (aka between the 'short version' tags) in the OP?

If shorts are gonna have a wonderful life according to your improvement  , and in the mean time there is still no significant increase in adoption of BitAssets , what will happen then ?

Will that be just like when BTA was first brought online last year and those BTA are produced more than market demand ?

[zerosum]

OK. A lot of opinions on ' forum addictiveness' , 'PR of silence' is the best / worst thing ever, Xeroc's knowledge of every possible bug; plus a healthy dose of wildpigs wisdom on wide range of subjects - from 'people will short more if they are not afraid of bugs' to 'devs will respond to development issues (i.e. not like the OP post, where no such issues were raised)'...

Anyone with opinion on the main issue (aka between the 'short version' tags) in the OP?

[xeroc]

To clarify, I do remember the shorting issue and thought it made it into one of the recent releases ..

Also I'd like to remark that even even though BitShares takes almost 100% of my spare time, it has gotten very difficult to follow every discussion AND contribute where possible ..

IMHO, things are moving forward alot faster than 9 months ago .. the baby is maturing as is the community ..
!

[carpet ride]

edit :
by the way , this is the 15 time in 10 minute that I click this post to see who has replied ..... so you can see how addictive this forum stuff is ....
I want to leave and do some more important things , but I just couldn't resist going back , because I feel like I'm in a conversation while it's not .
help me , please 

Truer words...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[btswildpig]

Forums are addicting.  I suspect leaving the forums is as hard for the devs as it is for those who want to interact with them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think if anyone wants to report actual development issues still will be addressed .
Try write more suggestions of improving the wallet , you'll see .

[sittingduck]

Forums are addicting.  I suspect leaving the forums is as hard for the devs as it is for those who want to interact with them. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[btswildpig]

I am fairly new here, from my (rather limited) perspective it went a bit downhill with the whole PR blunder and dev silence on the forums.

How can that be a good thing? IMO there needs to exist some back and forth between users and developers, otherwise it seems to me that the devs live in their nice cathedral in the clouds away from the userbase, and the users don't know very well what the devs are up to and even if the users' opinions matter at all.

+1000%

The only evidence we have at the moment that anything is being done is the github logs.

I remember getting into debates on reddit about how the BitShares developers are really transparent because theyre always on the forums answering questions. This is no longer the case.

we have another debate and that was how do they find the time to be always on the forum and answer questions one by one and still working on coding ?
Because I tried , if I follow the same pace , I couldn't do anything else for that day .
Answer question according to the devs own time table is good ( like see a question , answer in 2-3 days ), always on forum and always quickly answer question is a little scary .

Those times could have better spent , like answer questions for all of the users by providing a extensive help file , which is still lack of at this moment .

I saw Xeroc didn't even know about a serious manual short cover bug from 1 months ago (which is shock to me because if guys like him didn't know then what about the users ) , which is weird because that bug was asked and answered on the forum multiple times as I recall , but it seems that those time spent have already been forgotten . Only guys like me can remember because I spent tons of time on the forum . The bug seems to be fixed on Github .

By the way ... the devs has been answering questions these days ..... you just didn't notice because the frequency is reduced , and some of them you don't know they're "core dev" . And from the "closed issues" in Github you can see their development speed has been increased .

I want to use Stan's "Iceberg" metaphor , even when you don't see the devs telling you they're doing things , they're actually doing more things ....

edit :
by the way , this is the 15 time in 10 minute that I click this post to see who has replied ..... so you can see how addictive this forum stuff is ....
I want to leave and do some more important things , but I just couldn't resist going back , because I feel like I'm in a conversation while it's not .
help me , please 

[speedy]

I am fairly new here, from my (rather limited) perspective it went a bit downhill with the whole PR blunder and dev silence on the forums.

How can that be a good thing? IMO there needs to exist some back and forth between users and developers, otherwise it seems to me that the devs live in their nice cathedral in the clouds away from the userbase, and the users don't know very well what the devs are up to and even if the users' opinions matter at all.

+1000%

The only evidence we have at the moment that anything is being done is the github logs.

I remember getting into debates on reddit about how the BitShares developers are really transparent because theyre always on the forums answering questions. This is no longer the case.

[bitshare007777]

 

What we should do is just tools. People will use it to develop the ecosystem.
We need to concentrate on the key tools: wallets, gateways, decentralized exchange.

Price of bts is not undervalued, it is the right place it is worth now after considering the tools now and future potential.

[Riverhead]

I just found BitShares a little while ago and have been skimming through the forum to learn more. It seems that BitShares is really something totally new that nobody else has done before, so only way to go forward is through trial and error. It is always easy to say afterwards that "we should have done things differently" but at the time of making those decisions, it's impossible to know what is the optimal way.

I'm actually quite impressed how well the developers have handled difficult decisions. Of course it will always give some distress to investors when plans are changed on the fly, but in the long run it is propably the only way to make sure that the end product will be great.

Welcome! In my humble opinion you nailed it.


 

[karnal]

I am fairly new here, from my (rather limited) perspective it went a bit downhill with the whole PR blunder and dev silence on the forums.

How can that be a good thing? IMO there needs to exist some back and forth between users and developers, otherwise it seems to me that the devs live in their nice cathedral in the clouds away from the userbase, and the users don't know very well what the devs are up to and even if the users' opinions matter at all.


It seems unecessarily elitist to me that the developers no longer seem to post on the forums. This is a time where we all need to push together (discuss, brainstorm, develop the ecosystem, etc), not get divided in two camps.. the nobility and the lowly peasants.

[xiahui135]

What we should do is just tools. People will use it to develop the ecosystem.
We need to concentrate on the key tools: wallets, gateways, decentralized exchange.

Price of bts is not undervalued, it is the right place it is worth now after considering the tools now and future potential.

[Samupaha]

I just found BitShares a little while ago and have been skimming through the forum to learn more. It seems that BitShares is really something totally new that nobody else has done before, so only way to go forward is through trial and error. It is always easy to say afterwards that "we should have done things differently" but at the time of making those decisions, it's impossible to know what is the optimal way.

I'm actually quite impressed how well the developers have handled difficult decisions. Of course it will always give some distress to investors when plans are changed on the fly, but in the long run it is propably the only way to make sure that the end product will be great.

[liondani]

thanks tonyk2 for your constructive criticism ... at least I hope the core Dev's can see  that too...

edit:
PS personally I think we will skyrocket when we have a better gui for our exchange, something similar to what popular centralized exchanges have right now, and of course more stable and and with less bugs....

[xeroc]

I asked around , some people don't mind the current rule , but they simply don't want to short because they're afraid that their short order would get lost due to some bugs .

They would want to short if this issue is solved .

Hu? There is no such issue .. shorting works just fine ..

This one: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/issues/1385

Thx for sharing .. havent read about it yet ..

[abit]

I asked around , some people don't mind the current rule , but they simply don't want to short because they're afraid that their short order would get lost due to some bugs .

They would want to short if this issue is solved .

Hu? There is no such issue .. shorting works just fine ..

This one: https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/issues/1385

[btswildpig]

I asked around , some people don't mind the current rule , but they simply don't want to short because they're afraid that their short order would get lost due to some bugs .

They would want to short if this issue is solved .

Hu? There is no such issue .. shorting works just fine ..

happens some time . need to regenerate xxxxxx key

[xeroc]

I asked around , some people don't mind the current rule , but they simply don't want to short because they're afraid that their short order would get lost due to some bugs .

They would want to short if this issue is solved .

Hu? There is no such issue .. shorting works just fine ..

[btswildpig]

I asked around , some people don't mind the current rule , but they simply don't want to short because they're afraid that their short order would get lost due to some bugs .

They would want to short if this issue is solved .

[zerosum]

Can you add a "long story short , "  sentence ? 

Sure:
Added.

[btswildpig]

Can you add a "long story short , "  sentence ? 

[zerosum]

Recently a new trend in public opinion is that the price of BTS is what it is (low for the general consensus), in significant part somehow due to bad PR moves and blinders. Subsequently the logic is that if we fix the PR we will end up with higher price (or not big sudden price drops for the very least)Well I disagree with that notion. I even strongly disagree with the proposed improvements to the PR – namely total silence, but that is not what this thread is about. I firmly believe that the price reflects what is in the actual product and not how it was presented. In other words what was done (or not done), included or not included in the actual product (software in this case) and NOT how it was presented. Call me stupid, but that’s what I believe.

I want to skim over several factors far more important to the current BTS price. Those are mostly things of the past, mistakes already made and too late to fix. The only value in mentioning them is just a reminder to try and avoid them in the future, if we can.

1. Lack of focus and even to the extent of not believing enough in the fact that the core product is great (should I say revolutionary). bitAssets are the next big thing on the great path that BTC started. But we did not focus on them – we wondered to the great benefits that VOTE can bring losing important time and resources on it. BitAssets were not enough – we needed to have Titan – that added a great complexity slowed down development. Titan and the whole BTC incompatibility lead to very reserved very slow adoption by existing players in the crypto ecosystem (exchanges and off/on ramps being the most painful examples).
I know a big deal of development has been done from October till now… but if you look on the surface, if you just open the main wallet and want to see what has changed from user perspective – not so much – slightly less crash-y client plus maybe almost undocumented escrow and multisig. (Light and web wallet see progress in that time frame – that is true). Months and months spent on battling with our own ‘improvements’ that we unnecessary added to our main product –> bitAssets and exchange.
2. BTS added a great new innovation in the meantime – the ability of a DAC to finance itself! Another revolutionary step.
But man did we choose the most ridiculously stupid way of doing it… Instead of clearly defined projects or workers doing work for the BTS DAC – potentially with clearly defined budgets (read big enough at current market cap, and not excessive at large market caps) and clear separated voting for such project, we decided to go the path of least resistance and twist the delegates system to achieve that. I know that pretty much everybody voiced their opinion in favor of doing it the right way. But the hacky way was chosen (for now) and we are paying for that with underpaid developers or grasping for ways to fix this in some other ways.

After that I want to get to a major contributor to the current price situation. Implementation ‘detail’ that is largely ignored by most everybody. But I do find the issue very significant.

[Short version] The current 300% collateral (200% from shorts) puts the shorts in unnecessarily unfair position. This is a major, major contributing factor for the thin markets on the BTS exchange even now, but will be simply divesting for the future. First the 200% collateral leads to the BTS bulls and market liquidity providers (the shorts) to taking short position with amounts of capital (BTS) not exceeding somewhere between 33% and less than 50% of what they would have done in a just collateral system. And that reduction is simply to balance the unfairness of the system and i.e. to put their max losses in line with their max winnings. Second it reduces the interest rate the shorts are ready to provide. As on average  they should be receiving interest not paying one when 200% collateral is required by them. Third  - even as we speak the designed and expected total collateral in BTS system is reached or very close to being reached. If we assume that long term 25-33% of all BTS will be held in collateral [1*], the de facto provided collateral by BTS bulls has reached and/or exceeded that level. What it means that even the most bullish BTS holders will not be willing to provide much more new shorts (liquidity) simply in order to keep their average return expectation at 0. This no good news in a market that is already thing even in its most active markets and non-existent even in the most basic cross markets (bitUSD/bitCNY, bitUSD/bitSilver etc.)
* * * *
The issue is even worse because BTS bulls tend to be interested in the general health and well-being of the BTS ecosystem. For that reason they are willing voters in general. The inability of the shorts to vote with their collateral leads to not voting to the full extent of their stake and or providing less liquidity to the market. A definite lose-lose situation for BTS.
[/Short version]




[1*] 14% of available [2*] BTS are already directly held in collateral. As only 33%-50% of the total amount of exposure that any reasonably acting bull should keep in actual collateral, the amount of BTS dedicated to shorting currently is 28% to 42% of all available BTS.
[2*] Available BTS = total claimed from genesis + total BTS from the merger that are already vested as of today + newly issued BTS by dilution –  fees destroyed ;
[3*] In order to prevent losing more by any 2x price decrease of BTS than 2x price increase of BTS the shorts can put less than 100% of their BTS in any short position. The max that they can put in shorting if they expect that the price can go down by more than 2x is less than 50% (and less than 33% in they include the possibility for the price to go down 4x before going up from the base (starting price).  For details on the math you might find this post from arhag useful : https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=14622.msg190144#msg190144

This post got bigger than I expected and I made just a short summary of my main point… I guess I will have to extend on this later on…stay tuned.

Can you add a "long story short , "  sentence ? 

Sure:
Long story short - 200% collateral from shorts is a destructive force for the BTS market. The sooner we realize it and get rid of it the better. Why I believe this to be the case - you should read the long version above.  At least between the short version tags!