My guess: the hard core believers in BTS are the ones that short BitUSD and provide liquidity. Now they are being affected, and leaving BTS altogether, cutting their losses.
Now they are leaving?
That is a weird statement ... they have been leaving for months but hey... only those that work and being paid are considered to be contributing to Bitshares... the ones that have been warning for 6+ mo. and/or risking their money in a broken system are just complainers...
F*en idiots - bitAssets 3.0 is months and months away... and the affiliate program gig - a total joke that will never work as a payment system for everything.
In the mean time (6-9 mo. or so) let's continue killing the ones that are actually risking something to produce the actual product...they are not important...they are not paid by the blockchain....
And btw the 30 days rule is not the issue....it is just the trigger that makes the overexposed bulls face reality...the real issues are 200% collateral from shorts( plus a soft collateral mind you) and a bug persistent for 2 months with no urgency to fix it....which is making expiring shorts (not the called ones) pay 10% penalty. But why hurry to fix it.?!...may 5 is fine as well and for less than 200% collateral?...let them fools wait for bitA 3.0....
tonyk, you have certainly raised the bias against shorts often in the past. It's a tricky one, I think, because strictly there is an asymmetry between the demands of the two parties - on the one hand, bitUSD and its ilk are not really trading positions at all from the perspective of the target market for "longs" - they are deliberately designed as a non-expiring, safe, fungible currency unit, which places heavy constraints on the asset structure. Whereas the shorts delivering the product on the other side are traders that want greater leverage and flexibility. Two different needs and two different mindsets. If a bitUSD was simply a long trading position on currency, it could be leveraged on margin and expired on both sides, like traditional forwards or CFDs, and be symmetric for both parties. Unfortunately its not.
What do you think is the best way to resolve this?
I am beginning to think it is actually possible to have a floating common interest rate that could be allowed to become negative, so that shorts could get paid to carry positions if that's what was required for supply and demand to match. At least then shorts could be compensated for carrying higher collateral. Would that be a sufficient solution?
Or how about if the required collateral floated in a completely unconstrained manner with changes in market supply and demand? Then when shorts demand lower collateral requirements, they could get it, as long as this was acceptable to the other side of the market. But when demand is too low, shorts would need to be much more competitive on the collateral they offer. Could that be an avenue worth exploring?
Feel free to suggest other avenues of exploration. Interested in your thoughts on this.