[Python] Price Feed Script for BitShares 2.0

[topcandle]

Why is there a SQP?  Doesnt only forced settlement matter?

[tonyk]

I'm sorry guys.  I can't move the feed price alone.  I've updated to 110% from 150%.  I will keep a close eye on it and move it back if needed.

I updated xeroc's feed script a few hours ago and submitted feeds with maximum_short_squeeze_ratio at 1100.. It was my understanding that it would help prevent calls, of which there seem to be an unprecedented amount of. Do I understand correctly?

Voting for you and expecting you to figure out why you did what you did.

...
2 witnesses included in my vote so far.

[roadscape]

I'm sorry guys.  I can't move the feed price alone.  I've updated to 110% from 150%.  I will keep a close eye on it and move it back if needed.

I updated xeroc's feed script a few hours ago and submitted feeds with maximum_short_squeeze_ratio at 1100.. It was my understanding that it would help prevent calls, of which there seem to be an unprecedented amount of. Do I understand correctly?

[tonyk]

I'm sorry guys.  I can't move the feed price alone.  I've updated to 110% from 150%.  I will keep a close eye on it and move it back if needed.

It is a start..one guy not wanting all bitUSD to disappear at a time .

+5% +5%

voting for you only! at thispoint

[puppies]

I'm sorry guys.  I can't move the feed price alone.  I've updated to 110% from 150%.  I will keep a close eye on it and move it back if needed.

[tonyk]

It is something we have talked about at length.  At this point the consensus seems to be that we will trust BM, and not adjust just yet.

yes, all witness choose to trust BM, not think [for them]selfs.
you can do this is you want 1bitUSD=1.5 USD, until all bitUSD disapear.

+5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
          +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
                +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%
                       +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5% +5%


.... +5%

[Troglodactyl]

It is something we have talked about at length.  At this point the consensus seems to be that we will trust BM, and not adjust just yet.

yes, all witness choose to trust BM, not think self.
you can do this is you want 1bitUSD=1.5 USD, until all bitUSD disapear.

I cannot believe that this market is working as intended.  If the issue is liquidity then perhaps people should place some bids.  if given the choice between bitusd being $0.5 or $1.5 I will pick $1.5.  It has only been a couple of days.  I don't think we are in danger of all bitusd disappearing just yet.  In fact people seem unwilling to sell it even at this inflated price. 

I have a number of shorts open as well.  I had to add margin to them today to ensure I wouldn't get margin called.  I am no happier about the current state of the network than anyone else that is currently short.

The issue is not that no one is providing liquidity.  The issue is that the market is set up wrong, so it can't support liquidity.  If you all just wait for BM to tell you what to do then having more than one witness is a waste of money.

[puppies]

It is something we have talked about at length.  At this point the consensus seems to be that we will trust BM, and not adjust just yet.

yes, all witness choose to trust BM, not think self.
you can do this is you want 1bitUSD=1.5 USD, until all bitUSD disapear.

I cannot believe that this market is working as intended.  If the issue is liquidity then perhaps people should place some bids.  if given the choice between bitusd being $0.5 or $1.5 I will pick $1.5.  It has only been a couple of days.  I don't think we are in danger of all bitusd disappearing just yet.  In fact people seem unwilling to sell it even at this inflated price. 

I have a number of shorts open as well.  I had to add margin to them today to ensure I wouldn't get margin called.  I am no happier about the current state of the network than anyone else that is currently short.

[alt]

It is something we have talked about at length.  At this point the consensus seems to be that we will trust BM, and not adjust just yet.

yes, all witness choose to trust BM, not think self.
you can do this is you want 1bitUSD=1.5 USD, until all bitUSD disapear.

[puppies]

It is something we have talked about at length.  At this point the consensus seems to be that we will trust BM, and not adjust just yet. 

[alt]

I borrow 100 usd from bank, reserve my phone current worth 265 usd. now you grab my phone, sell it to 100 usd.
unbelivable.
so disapoint that all witness think I am wrong.they all admit to sell the phone to 100 usd

[Troglodactyl]

the question is , how much we can set  short_squeeze_ratio to?
which is better? which is bad?
if witness set it to 1000%, all short position will force margin call, and sell at 10% price. I think it's bad.
if 500% is bad? if 200% is bad? if 150% is bad? what's the rule? do we need to set a hard code limit? what's the value?
will you short bitUSD if there is no limit?
in my opnion, 110% should be the hard code limit, if we don't protect short position, nobody dare to short, bitUSD die.

I don't think there is one economically "correct" answer since it depends on collateralization. Well collateralized markets  can have it set much higher than lower collateralized markets. At this point, you have to go by "feel" and adjust accordingly. Or we can use the price feed script to publish a squeeze ratio that is a function of SWAN or average collateralization for each market.

Maybe 1.25xSWAN is a good number? That means:
1.25xSWAN_PRICE = FEED/SQR
SQR= (FEED/SWAN_PRICE) X .8

Has no one else here noticed that the market is broken?  Adjusting the SQR to something more reasonable would be a start, at least it would minimize the damage.

Seriously, witnesses need to be paying attention to this.

[maqifrnswa]

the question is , how much we can set  short_squeeze_ratio to?
which is better? which is bad?
if witness set it to 1000%, all short position will force margin call, and sell at 10% price. I think it's bad.
if 500% is bad? if 200% is bad? if 150% is bad? what's the rule? do we need to set a hard code limit? what's the value?
will you short bitUSD if there is no limit?
in my opnion, 110% should be the hard code limit, if we don't protect short position, nobody dare to short, bitUSD die.

I don't think there is one economically "correct" answer since it depends on collateralization. Well collateralized markets  can have it set much higher than lower collateralized markets. At this point, you have to go by "feel" and adjust accordingly. Or we can use the price feed script to publish a squeeze ratio that is a function of SWAN or average collateralization for each market.

Maybe 1.25xSWAN is a good number? That means:
1.25xSWAN_PRICE = FEED/SQR
SQR= (FEED/SWAN_PRICE) X .8

[alt]

the question is , how much we can set  short_squeeze_ratio to?
which is better? which is bad?
if witness set it to 1000%, all short position will force margin call, and sell at 10% price. I think it's bad.
if 500% is bad? if 200% is bad? if 150% is bad? what's the rule? do we need to set a hard code limit? what's the value?
will you short bitUSD if there is no limit?
in my opnion, 110% should be the hard code limit, if we don't protect short position, nobody dare to short, bitUSD die.

[maqifrnswa]

I skrewed up my git repository while "cleanin up" ..
I agree with the protection and SQR to be defined by the witnesses even though I am not sure they are supposed to be the same for all markets.

Anyway. what I don't like to see is workers publishing price feeds .. even though that would make running a witness legally uncritical in most countries, it would complicated running a worker (since you now need to actually RUN somthing) + you'd have the legal problems too ..

I also agree that workers shouldn't be publishing price feeds. I think people are thinking committee members should propose a short squeeze ratio that is approved, like any other network parameter change, by the users. No different legal issues than changing fees and witnesses still publish feeds.