BitAsset 3.0 Concerns

[inarizushi]

BitAssets 3.0 seem absolutely great. I want them. BUT :
1) letting all the current shorters bleed to death is not nice at all (and that's what announcing 3.0 does, nobody want to shorts anymore)
2) Cohabitation will cause so much trouble. Nobody will ever have enough patience to understand the difference between bitUSD1 and bitUSD2. Only bitAssets3.0 should be there, but the shorters and holders have to be rightly compensated. Can't we find a fair way to convert a current short into a bitAsset3.0 short ? That would be perfect.

The end of the road seems a great place to be. The path to there is still full of shit.

[graffenwalder]

Let's assume for a second that Bitassets 3.0 are implemented.
And I'm a new user interested in using them.

Can you ELI5 bitassets in 10 sentences? (more I would probably walk away)

[Ander]

A fiat <--> bitAsset gateway IS a big priority right now..

And having one would also be a big help to future merchant adoption once that becomes important.

[mf-tzo]

if I am a merchant accepting bitusd and I want to convert my bitusd in usd there shouldn't be any limit of how much I can convert imho..

 

---------------- Detour (only read if you want to detour from this topic a bit) ... ----------------

Are there any merchants accepting bitUSD?  If not, want one?

I'll get you one setup within 24 hrs, if people will actually use bitUSD to purchase.

I've helped them setup with various other coins, but none of the coins communities supported the effort (and used their coins to purchase).

I believe they're back down to only accepting BTC (outside of fiat) at this point. Say the word and I'll do my best!

P.S. If I do this, and once again there is no support from the community requesting it, I will shame your community publicly! =b
Seriously, it gets old having communities tell you they want merchants, then watch that community never use the merchants you bring them.
It also reflects poorly on me with the merchants. So please don't waste my time (or the merchants) unless you are serious. I went through this with Dogecoin and a few others.
Please excuse my lack of excitement. I'm trying really hard to keep the faith in this, "we need merchants", speech coins give. Restore my faith BTS!

---------- Back to your regulurly scheduled discussion ---------

I dont think merchant adoption of bitUSD is the priority right now, and I dont think you will get a lot of merchant use of bitUSD right now if you work on it.  So you'll end up publically shaming us.

The priority right now is TRADERS.  We want to be an EXCHANGE.  We want bitUSD to be a cash option on our internal exchange, used by traders who trade  between having price exposure to BTS, fiat (bitUSD/bitCNY/etc), gold, silver, oil, etc, etc.   

Merchant adoption of bitUSD/bitCNY would come after this is successfully established.  (Probably through a bitpay like gateway).  We would need a gateway that accepts and converts from real USD to bitUSD interchagably.  Then merchants could sign up with this gateway the way they currently sign up with bitpay to accept bitcoin. 

We need to make the internal BTS market work well for traders first, because that is our main function and target market right now.  And then work on merchant adoption later.


(Of course, if anyone 'official' wants to come out and say "no, bitUSD merchant adoption is the priority now, and here is why", then they could change my mind).

lol..Under no way I was implying that bitusd for merchants is a priority now. Of course we need to establish first as a decentralized exchange (although I always imagined Bitshares as a decentralized bitassets derivatives clearing house but anyway that is another story) to attract traders. But once we go to v1 the rules should not change for a couple of years at least so we shouldn't create unfavor conditions for these who want to exchange bitusd to usd instantly and without limits (gateways, merchants etc). Anyway apparently it was not important and I am sure I misunderstood the implied mechanics..

[xiahui135]

As long as the BTA is well backed, people can hold BTA with no worry.
The stable value of BTA comes from pegging--- a market make action (like Nubits) or merchant adoption.
So the primay purpose is to make BTA well backed, we need a strong BTS price. The market need to let the  shorter in advantage, not the BTA holder. At least the shorter need to be equal to the BTA holder.

Edit:
As for the interest, there is no need for the system to pay to BTA holder. It is like people do not get interest for the money in his hand, but for money in the bank. BTA holders need to invest their money to a investment fund to get interest. The bank pay interest because it uses the money to make more money.

The system interest need to pay the system shareholder: longterm BTS holder.That is a very important reason they hold the share----because the share generate value.
If not, then the shareholder must sell the shares to get profit. That is a pure price speculation, and overall the shareholder group as a hole will finally fail for just giving value to other groups(the 101 and BTA holders), but get little.

[Ander]

if I am a merchant accepting bitusd and I want to convert my bitusd in usd there shouldn't be any limit of how much I can convert imho..

 

---------------- Detour (only read if you want to detour from this topic a bit) ... ----------------

Are there any merchants accepting bitUSD?  If not, want one?

I'll get you one setup within 24 hrs, if people will actually use bitUSD to purchase.

I've helped them setup with various other coins, but none of the coins communities supported the effort (and used their coins to purchase).

I believe they're back down to only accepting BTC (outside of fiat) at this point. Say the word and I'll do my best!

P.S. If I do this, and once again there is no support from the community requesting it, I will shame your community publicly! =b
Seriously, it gets old having communities tell you they want merchants, then watch that community never use the merchants you bring them.
It also reflects poorly on me with the merchants. So please don't waste my time (or the merchants) unless you are serious. I went through this with Dogecoin and a few others.
Please excuse my lack of excitement. I'm trying really hard to keep the faith in this, "we need merchants", speech coins give. Restore my faith BTS!

---------- Back to your regulurly scheduled discussion ---------

I dont think merchant adoption of bitUSD is the priority right now, and I dont think you will get a lot of merchant use of bitUSD right now if you work on it.  So you'll end up publically shaming us.

The priority right now is TRADERS.  We want to be an EXCHANGE.  We want bitUSD to be a cash option on our internal exchange, used by traders who trade  between having price exposure to BTS, fiat (bitUSD/bitCNY/etc), gold, silver, oil, etc, etc.   

Merchant adoption of bitUSD/bitCNY would come after this is successfully established.  (Probably through a bitpay like gateway).  We would need a gateway that accepts and converts from real USD to bitUSD interchagably.  Then merchants could sign up with this gateway the way they currently sign up with bitpay to accept bitcoin. 

We need to make the internal BTS market work well for traders first, because that is our main function and target market right now.  And then work on merchant adoption later.


(Of course, if anyone 'official' wants to come out and say "no, bitUSD merchant adoption is the priority now, and here is why", then they could change my mind). 

[Helikopterben]

While any forced transaction will limit the free market, we have to remember why BTA have any value at all. They have value since supply=demand at a price where BTA value=peg of some external market. Since demand is external to the system, supply must be controlled by the system so BTA will have any value at all. There is no way to avoid forced transactions. The question is how to set it up fairly.

This may be true now, but may not necessarily be true at higher levels of adoption.  Legacy futures and paper markets largely influence prices on external physical markets.  I agree that true prices are prices in which buyer and seller agree on the exchange of the physical good in question, however, derivatives markets do influence prices because there are use cases such as 'store of value' that is more efficient when done in a digital format.  Bitshares could one day become large enough to influence physical market prices.

[maqifrnswa]

if I am a merchant accepting bitusd and I want to convert my bitusd in usd there shouldn't be any limit of how much I can convert imho..

 

There is no limit in how much they can convert in bitshares 3.0 - just exchange it on the market instantly. The limits BM mentioned only apply to forced calls to reduce excess BTA supply, not to converting to/from BTA and BTS.

[maqifrnswa]

Bottom line:  Any time you force someone into a transaction they do not agree to, you are limiting the free market.  Obviously, some forced transactions such as margin calls are necessary to protect the integrity of the system.

While any forced transaction will limit the free market, we have to remember why BTA have any value at all. They have value since supply=demand at a price where BTA value=peg of some external market. Since demand is external to the system, supply must be controlled by the system so BTA will have any value at all. There is no way to avoid forced transactions. The question is how to set it up fairly.

Currently: BTA supply increases when someone is willing to generate them at or below a price that an external market says is allowed (limiting free market), and BTA are destroyed when someone closes out their short position. If these transactions don't occur close enough to the peg, the system automatically forces margin calls to reduce supply.

The new system: BTA supply increases whenever someone wants to short BTS and is decreased whenever someone wants to close their position (both creation and destruction are free). However, if supply deviates from demand enough that the BTA value is not = peg, then the system will allow for forced transactions to reduce supply.

[Tuck Fheman]

if I am a merchant accepting bitusd and I want to convert my bitusd in usd there shouldn't be any limit of how much I can convert imho..

 

---------------- Detour (only read if you want to detour from this topic a bit) ... ----------------

Are there any merchants accepting bitUSD?  If not, want one?

I'll get you one setup within 24 hrs, if people will actually use bitUSD to purchase.

I've helped them setup with various other coins, but none of the coins communities supported the effort (and used their coins to purchase).

I believe they're back down to only accepting BTC (outside of fiat) at this point. Say the word and I'll do my best!

P.S. If I do this, and once again there is no support from the community requesting it, I will shame your community publicly! =b
Seriously, it gets old having communities tell you they want merchants, then watch that community never use the merchants you bring them.
It also reflects poorly on me with the merchants. So please don't waste my time (or the merchants) unless you are serious. I went through this with Dogecoin and a few others.
Please excuse my lack of excitement. I'm trying really hard to keep the faith in this, "we need merchants", speech coins give. Restore my faith BTS!

---------- Back to your regulurly scheduled discussion ---------

[Helikopterben]

Bottom line:  Any time you force someone into a transaction they do not agree to, you are limiting the free market.  Obviously, some forced transactions such as margin calls are necessary to protect the integrity of the system.

I never really saw the problem with the original design.  I know liquidity was a concern, but liquidity entering the system is a function of time.  In other words, people will gradually move assets into the system over time as they become comfortable with the reliability, usability, and security of the system.

If you must guarantee liquidity to USD holders, then I believe the current 3.0 proposal is a good one.  Perhaps allow 5% of supply to be redeemed per day instead of the 1% as someone else suggested.  Make forced liquidation an option that the user has to enable and make the user accept a warning that they will only recieve 99% of a dollar's value 24 hrs into the future, to deter users from exercising this function.  Hopefully this will be an option that rarely gets used if ever.  Once significant liquidity enters the system, the vast majority of users should have no problem redeeming well within 99% of the feed, except possibly on rare occations during extremely volatile times.

[xiahui135]

if we want to save BTS, we need the market is in balance, or even a little better for shorts.

Though there will be a little more BTA in the market, the BTA will be well backed. And we need not to worry about the BTA amount, as long as it can be pegged by money changer.

[merivercap]

Can someone tell me what the current price feed is or price feeds are? 

Is it the average of the USD->BTC->BTS chain at various exchanges?

Just looking for a link..thx.

This is currently the most popular tool set that includes a python feed script: https://github.com/bitsuperlab/operation_tools

Thanks Riverhead. I'm not a coder, but digging in it seems BTC38, BTER, Yunbi are the exchanges and the script pulls USD->CNY info from Yahoo?  I assume the price feed is then: USD->CNY->BTS using the following exchanges: BTC38/BTER/Yunbi for CNY->BTS

Thx.

[xiahui135]

Take a seat first.

Edit:
This is not good, as u did not consider the case that no one want short.

1. We need to enable interest rate range from positive to negative. If large demand of USD or no one want short, shorter can set the interest to negative, to hedge some risk. If people do not want USD, but some people still want to short, then they can set the interest to positive, to encourage people hold USD.

2. We need to enable the monthly reset collateral rate to 200%, for the short order that collateral no more than 200%. Shorter can chose add their collateral, or cover this short. Short order that with collateral rate more than 200% no need cover, the part of collateral more than 200% will be automatically return to shorter.

3. If we have 1 and 2, I agree with your force-settlement. But we shall only force settle the bitUSD that are listed in the sell side market. This will give potential  bitUSD buyer a chance to buy the bitUSD, this can reduce unnecessary settlement and reduce settle-attack. Force-settle will force the short order that will the less collateral rate first, and the oldest order settle first.

从我的 iPhone 发送，使用 Tapatalk

Start sounds better than you original proposal now.
I think the second and third sounds reasonable. The first one need specify how to do that.

[xiahui135]

it is hard to fix all the problem, but we can concern on the main and most important problem. Make discisions on this, and we then consider how to solve other problem under the structure.