my plan to adjust SQP

[lafona]

I don't think we should reduce it past 110 or 10%. I think in reducing it we are reducing the incentive for people to protect the network against a black swan. While I understand this can skew the price of the MPA by 10%, I dont think the problem is the SQP price but the fact that there no one is willing to sell MPA for 10% profit.

[cube]

bump!

[xeroc]

[Price Feed] asset specific SQP etc
https://github.com/xeroc/python-graphenelib/commit/21f22a93c2812819fa2590866ec345f562646120

The configuration file syntax has changed!!

[alt]

I agree we can try to set SQP to 1000, or some else.
but before we adjust this, we should give a hard limit first, like SQP can't more than 1100. and can't less than XXXX.

[clout]

if you have bitUSD, when you know the SQP will change from 1100 to 1090, next to 1080, next to 1070 ....
you'd best sell bitUSD to the force margin call ASAP to get more benifit.
this will help liquility

if the SQP always 1000, or always 1100, maybe you will not hurry, and always wait...

and I don't agree set SQP less than 1000, the shorter should buy back the bitUSD actively, or need pay more.
if set SQP less than 1000, the shorter will prefer don't buy back bitUSD.

Then what happens when you get down to or near 1000, will you bring the SQP back up. There is no reason to dynamically alter the SQP because it shouldn't exist at all.  The SQP is another example of BM trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and in the process worsening the functionality of the Bitshares markets.

[tonyk]

if you have bitUSD, when you know the SQP will change from 1100 to 1090, next to 1080, next to 1070 ....
you'd best sell bitUSD to the force margin call ASAP to get more benifit.
this will help liquility

if the SQP always 1000, or always 1100, maybe you will not hurry, and always wait...

and I don't agree set SQP less than 1000, the shorter should buy back the bitUSD actively, or need pay more.
if set SQP less than 1000, the shorter will prefer don't buy back bitUSD.

well I agree on one thing with SQP below 1000...it will be the first time in BTS space, the shorters (liquidity providers, mind you) starting to get somewhat of equal footing....
but then I know it is always better to screw them and find other ways to grow the system (still screwing them preferably)

Good plan!

Good idea!

For sure working GREAT for the past 18 months....

(Tuck will send you the good idea tokens, btw)

[alt]

if you have bitUSD, when you know the SQP will change from 1100 to 1090, next to 1080, next to 1070 ....
you'd best sell bitUSD to the force margin call ASAP to get more benifit.
this will help liquility

if the SQP always 1000, or always 1100, maybe you will not hurry, and always wait...

and I don't agree set SQP less than 1000, the shorter should buy back the bitUSD actively, or need pay more.
if set SQP less than 1000, the shorter will prefer don't buy back bitUSD.

[tonyk]

SQP to 1000 i think doesn't work.  Forced margin call may never trigger.  It would require buying at or beyond the feed/settlement.

I'm not sure I understand what the hoped for result is of moving from 1100 to 1030.  In a market that doesn't want them at a 10% discount,  surely doesn't want them at only a 3% discount.   The closer SQP gets to 0% the more risk your taking of an ultimately under collateralized position.   This was the purpose of SQP being initially set at 1500 or 50%, because surely someone will always trade for a 50% discount to settle out the margin call.   (it has issues though as we've discussed)

I would be curious to see what happens though setting to 3%.  If traders are truly trading around the SQP limits or if 10% off settlement is just the risk priced market rate .

I just had a thought, ... First, what If SQP was only triggered if feed falls below call limit, but the SQP percentage was base on how far the feed is beyond the call limit. With feed at the call limit, SQP could be 0%.  With feed at 10% beyond the call limit,  SQP could scale to 10% also.  So the further beyond the call limit the feed gets, the more urgent it is to settle the margin call.

another random thought, Could we allow for under collateralized positions have the market continue and either wait/hope the price returns to where it can be collateralized and settled or if it was never going to happen you might authorize a worker to fund whatever was needed to settle the missing collateral. (i havn't thought about this at all just random)

I'm a little tired though, so I hope these made sense , and not too random.

how come they do not work at 1000 (or 900 for that matter) it is a just a buy order at feed (0.9*feed respectively)

*when all other call conditions are met.

** and yes, I will try to make close to 50% when the systems allows me to make close to 50%, close to 10% when 10% is the max allowed, etc...

*** for the purpose of this discussion I will ignore the  stupendous fact that SQP, is a market order moving in the 'fuck you  direction' with the feed, for the shorter.

[bitcrab]

110% is MSSR, SQP is asset specific,  SQP=settlement price/MSSR, right?

in BM's short  term road map post below item is listed:

1.  Prevent margin call from being triggered unless the price feed is less than call price  (popular demand)

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20214.0.html

if I understand correctly, this change means to adjust the MSSR to 100%.
why not to push BM to implement this?

[Xeldal]

SQP to 1000 i think doesn't work.  Forced margin call may never trigger.  It would require buying at or beyond the feed/settlement.

I'm not sure I understand what the hoped for result is of moving from 1100 to 1030.  In a market that doesn't want them at a 10% discount,  surely doesn't want them at only a 3% discount.   The closer SQP gets to 0% the more risk your taking of an ultimately under collateralized position.   This was the purpose of SQP being initially set at 1500 or 50%, because surely someone will always trade for a 50% discount to settle out the margin call.   (it has issues though as we've discussed)

I would be curious to see what happens though setting to 3%.  If traders are truly trading around the SQP limits or if 10% off settlement is just the risk priced market rate .

I just had a thought, ... First, what If SQP was only triggered if feed falls below call limit, but the SQP percentage was base on how far the feed is beyond the call limit. With feed at the call limit, SQP could be 0%.  With feed at 10% beyond the call limit,  SQP could scale to 10% also.  So the further beyond the call limit the feed gets, the more urgent it is to settle the margin call.

another random thought, Could we allow for under collateralized positions have the market continue and either wait/hope the price returns to where it can be collateralized and settled or if it was never going to happen you might authorize a worker to fund whatever was needed to settle the missing collateral. (i havn't thought about this at all just random)

I'm a little tired though, so I hope these made sense , and not too random. 

 

[tonyk]

I like the idea of lowering the SQP which tends to help the shorters, and which in turn provides liquidity.  I like to hear the pros and cons from the players (long and short) and other stakeholders.

@bytemaster  @bitcrab @tonyk  @Xeldal  @maqifrnswa @mindphlux   your input are appreciated.

Please share your views.

1000 all the way... I can argue for 990, but not in form today to explain it best.


PS
ohh and do not ask BM, he is for 1500 from the start. That is how he got me for 750K BTS...or did I get him???

[cube]

I like the idea of lowering the SQP which tends to help the shorters, and which in turn provides liquidity.  I like to hear the pros and cons from the players (long and short) and other stakeholders.

@bytemaster  @bitcrab @tonyk  @Xeldal  @maqifrnswa @mindphlux   your input are appreciated.

Please share your views.

[Fox]

I support adjusting down the sort squeeze. Currently publishing 1090 and will continue down while watching market.

[alt]

sounds legit ..

shall I implement a flexible asset-specific SQP parameter in the price feed script?

that will be a big help

[clout]

Hey guys can we experiment by making the SQP = 1000 and just keep it there.  I think it will create liquidity and create a better peg... everyone implicitly expects trade to happen at the price feed anyways.

Yes we should do this. SQP is a bad hack for dealing with illiquid markets and further reduces liquidity by discouraging shorts to enter the market. It also discourages those that would maintain a neutral position by simultaneously going long and short a given bitasset and providing market making for the bitasset and its real world counterpart.