Author Topic: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review  (Read 26323 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline milkmeat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: milkmeat
110% forced cover is a feature, not a bug...

101%-105% max would clearly be nice.


I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.

We're used to it in America. We have two kinds of politicians that are the same thing but that are not compatible (when in view). It's actually very easy to market and is working quite well for TPTB. ;)
Hilarious  :P That's a very clever analogy, no doubt it'll help our marketing team !

IMHO this is not a good analogy.
In USA there are two and only two parties.
In our world we have too many altcoins that claim to have stable value, such as nubit, tether, etherum etc. Having 2 different bitUSD will easily confuse people and drive them to use other altcoins.

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
110% forced cover is a feature, not a bug...

101%-105% max would clearly be nice.


I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.

We're used to it in America. We have two kinds of politicians that are the same thing but that are not compatible (when in view). It's actually very easy to market and is working quite well for TPTB. ;)
Hilarious  :P That's a very clever analogy, no doubt it help our marketing team !

No, not a bug.  I'd call it a design flaw.

Offline inarizushi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
110% forced cover is a feature, not a bug...

101%-105% max would clearly be nice.


I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.

We're used to it in America. We have two kinds of politicians that are the same thing but that are not compatible (when in view). It's actually very easy to market and is working quite well for TPTB. ;)
Hilarious  :P That's a very clever analogy, no doubt it'll help our marketing team !
« Last Edit: May 02, 2015, 10:50:07 pm by inarizushi »
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
I think the biggest issue with BitAssets right now is the forced cover at 110% feed on expiration.  If we're going to have expiration at all, it should force a cover at the feed.  As it is now, longs have no reason to sell at the feed, since with a little patience they can expect a forced buy at +10%.  Now that shorts have figured this out, they're mostly only shorting at a price limit of about +10%, so the peg is actually being maintained pretty effectively at around $1.10.

The new BitAssets 3.0 proposal mostly fixes this by moving forced cover to -1% instead of +10%, but it seems like a major overhaul where a few fixes would be sufficient.  If it's necessary for longer range plans for the bond market it may make sense anyway.
Is this not gonna be fixed after tuesday's hardfork? That was my impression but i am uncertain about it..

I think Tuesday's hardfork was fixing the market freeze when shorts expire, but not the fact that they're forced to cover at 110%, hopefully I'm wrong on that.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12920
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I think the biggest issue with BitAssets right now is the forced cover at 110% feed on expiration.  If we're going to have expiration at all, it should force a cover at the feed.  As it is now, longs have no reason to sell at the feed, since with a little patience they can expect a forced buy at +10%.  Now that shorts have figured this out, they're mostly only shorting at a price limit of about +10%, so the peg is actually being maintained pretty effectively at around $1.10.

The new BitAssets 3.0 proposal mostly fixes this by moving forced cover to -1% instead of +10%, but it seems like a major overhaul where a few fixes would be sufficient.  If it's necessary for longer range plans for the bond market it may make sense anyway.
Is this not gonna be fixed after tuesday's hardfork? That was my impression but i am uncertain about it..

Tuck Fheman

  • Guest
I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.

We're used to it in America. We have two kinds of politicians that are the same thing but that are not compatible (when in view). It's actually very easy to market and is working quite well for TPTB. ;)


Offline inarizushi

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 316
    • View Profile
To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.
Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

Are delegates supposed to publish feeds for the old assets? What if they refuse and nobody can unwind at market prices? Are we sure this has been thought through compketely?
what happens with bitUSD that are unaccessable due to lost keys?

Same thing that happens to BitUSD that are held by someone as savings for ever.  It requires someone to be short forever and will ultimately push up the price of BitUSD above $1 if there is no-one willing to short

BTA1.0 and 3.0 should be able to use the same price feed because they peg to the same asset (e.g USD).

I have concern that having old and new BTA running together will weaken the confidence that people want to accept BTA. As the BTA 1.0 isn't working well, who knows if BTA 3.0 is working well or not?
If we have confidence that both BTA 1.0 and BTA 3.0 can peg to 1 USD eventually, why not we convert BTA1.0 to BTA3.0 to keep things simple.

I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.
Finding a fair way to convert current shorts into 3.0 shorts (and probably ask the community to vote about it) is all we need. Is it possible ?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Troglodactyl

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
I think the biggest issue with BitAssets right now is the forced cover at 110% feed on expiration.  If we're going to have expiration at all, it should force a cover at the feed.  As it is now, longs have no reason to sell at the feed, since with a little patience they can expect a forced buy at +10%.  Now that shorts have figured this out, they're mostly only shorting at a price limit of about +10%, so the peg is actually being maintained pretty effectively at around $1.10.

The new BitAssets 3.0 proposal mostly fixes this by moving forced cover to -1% instead of +10%, but it seems like a major overhaul where a few fixes would be sufficient.  If it's necessary for longer range plans for the bond market it may make sense anyway.

Offline milkmeat

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: milkmeat
To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.
Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

Are delegates supposed to publish feeds for the old assets? What if they refuse and nobody can unwind at market prices? Are we sure this has been thought through compketely?
what happens with bitUSD that are unaccessable due to lost keys?

Same thing that happens to BitUSD that are held by someone as savings for ever.  It requires someone to be short forever and will ultimately push up the price of BitUSD above $1 if there is no-one willing to short

BTA1.0 and 3.0 should be able to use the same price feed because they peg to the same asset (e.g USD).

I have concern that having old and new BTA running together will weaken the confidence that people want to accept BTA. As the BTA 1.0 isn't working well, who knows if BTA 3.0 is working well or not?
If we have confidence that both BTA 1.0 and BTA 3.0 can peg to 1 USD eventually, why not we convert BTA1.0 to BTA3.0 to keep things simple.

Offline yellowecho

Low liquidity is the issue .
If BTA demands more premium , then it'll lose attractiveness at this early age . If no premium , even with the bug fix , the high demand for BTA brings covering pressure will still makes shorts not wanting to continue anymore . Without liquidity , BTA is useless for the outside world .
Ok, I just think getting rid of bugs in the current system would give shorts more confidence

do you think one of them is the ability to use existing collateral to cover?

Absolutely, this.
696c6f766562726f776e696573

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Low liquidity is the issue .
If BTA demands more premium , then it'll lose attractiveness at this early age . If no premium , even with the bug fix , the high demand for BTA brings covering pressure will still makes shorts not wanting to continue anymore . Without liquidity , BTA is useless for the outside world .
Ok, I just think getting rid of bugs in the current system would give shorts more confidence

do you think one of them is the ability to use existing collateral to cover?
I think being able to cover with collateral would help things, I know there are people that forget to separate their balances or keep enough BTS to cover so they just wait it out until their short expires.

Offline liondani

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3737
  • Inch by inch, play by play
    • View Profile
    • My detailed info
  • BitShares: liondani
  • GitHub: liondani
Low liquidity is the issue .
If BTA demands more premium , then it'll lose attractiveness at this early age . If no premium , even with the bug fix , the high demand for BTA brings covering pressure will still makes shorts not wanting to continue anymore . Without liquidity , BTA is useless for the outside world .
Ok, I just think getting rid of bugs in the current system would give shorts more confidence

do you think one of them is the ability to use existing collateral to cover?

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
Low liquidity is the issue .
If BTA demands more premium , then it'll lose attractiveness at this early age . If no premium , even with the bug fix , the high demand for BTA brings covering pressure will still makes shorts not wanting to continue anymore . Without liquidity , BTA is useless for the outside world .
Ok, I just think getting rid of bugs in the current system would give shorts more confidence

And you're right imo, mainly because there is still that old bug with shorts if im not mistaken. covers not getting matched with shorts,
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
Low liquidity is the issue .
If BTA demands more premium , then it'll lose attractiveness at this early age . If no premium , even with the bug fix , the high demand for BTA brings covering pressure will still makes shorts not wanting to continue anymore . Without liquidity , BTA is useless for the outside world .
Ok, I just think getting rid of bugs in the current system would give shorts more confidence

4290 USD worth of BitCNY sold at transwiser.com by range of 1.007 CNY~ 1.01 CNY today ...many of them is for covering short orders

There are lots of BitCNY being stockpiled by some ordinary users who wants to hold it or use it , I will not be surprised if most of BitCNY produced by the new shorts even after the bug fix will be hold by actual buyers for a long time , then it'll be like users and short-coverers fighting for BitCNY .... so there will still be premium , and shorts will lose incentive to do it anymore coz they don't want to pay premium to cover .
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline Agent86

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 471
  • BTSX: agent86
    • View Profile
Low liquidity is the issue .
If BTA demands more premium , then it'll lose attractiveness at this early age . If no premium , even with the bug fix , the high demand for BTA brings covering pressure will still makes shorts not wanting to continue anymore . Without liquidity , BTA is useless for the outside world .
Ok, I just think getting rid of bugs in the current system would give shorts more confidence