Author Topic: [POLL] What rate should the committee sell the collected bitassets over feed?  (Read 3214 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
For simplicity once the order is placed on the books at +10% maybe it should be left there. Trying to adjust it adds un needed complexity.
even if the order isn't executed for months it will still be good for the system as it adds depth.

Simple is best. Perhaps the committee should collect and sell the fees on the first day of every month and leave them there.
This would make it simple for the rest of us to quickly audit what has happened.
I like that idea .. put it there and let it stay there ..

Also, I think we shouldn't put a simple 'wall' but 5-10 orders spread over +5% - +10%
Not a fan of walls since they result in slippage (even though BTS is not a trader, it should still act rational)

A wall actually reduces slippage as it adds market depth.
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range. When < 0% there is a buyer of last resort -- forced settlement. But at >10%, there is an undersupply of smatcoins in the market. Therefore, the system should allow some space for shorters to profit (i.e., >10%) but low enough to give shorters some protection in case price runs away from the feed and the need to close in a hurry. The committee wall is that backstop for shorters.

That's why I think 2x squeeze protection makes sense, and why I like a "wall." You can always start high and bring it closer if needed.

EDIT: 10% can also make sense. when >10%, the market is "broken" since margin calls have stopped. So setting it to whatever the short squeeze protection is makes sense too, in order to prevent the market from "breaking"
« Last Edit: January 30, 2016, 10:07:09 pm by maqifrnswa »
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
Ok committee can you transfer the collected fees from COMMITTEE-ACCOUNT over to COMMITTEE-TRADE

And put up sell walls at feed +15% for each bitasset
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline puppies

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1659
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: puppies
I can submit the proposals to transfer.  I would like to have the members of the committee-trade account ironed out first.  Bhuz, abit, and I are on it from the current committee.  DSN is aware, and doesn't wish to be on it at the moment.  Cube is aware and doesn't wish to be on it at the moment.  (they are both too busy to be able to approve trades in a timely manner)  I would like to hear form the other committee members. Alt, bitcrab, Harvey,  clayop, mindphlux.  Do any of you want in?  Any issues with this proposal?
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range.


If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product imo.

Nubits cost you less than a few percent to buy and sell, UpholdUSD too I assume, so if you have a short holding period the risk of either of those failing isn't enough to justify paying a much larger spread for BitUSD.

We either need to incentivize the shorts to come closer during these market conditions/adjust the collateral requirements/other.

If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range.


If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product imo.

Nubits cost you less than a few percent to buy and sell, UpholdUSD too I assume, so if you have a short holding period the risk of either of those failing isn't enough to justify paying a much larger spread for BitUSD.

We either need to incentivize the shorts to come closer during these market conditions/adjust the collateral requirements/other.

This isn't really about liquidity its more about making sure trade fees go to the reserve pool where they belong.  Other more radical plans for liquidity are being discussed and are needed for a tighter peg.
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range.


If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product imo.

Nubits cost you less than a few percent to buy and sell, UpholdUSD too I assume, so if you have a short holding period the risk of either of those failing isn't enough to justify paying a much larger spread for BitUSD.

We either need to incentivize the shorts to come closer during these market conditions/adjust the collateral requirements/other.

I agree with your recent believe "If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product" ( I do not agree that we should go to Nubits gimmicks if need be. but it not here nor there).

And it is simple - it starts from the head - If BM shorts his BTS positions at something ridiculously high... say 7x collateral ratio he will prove he believes the product as well as the price will no go THAT much south, he will show (not just say) that he will search of ways to not dilute whenever possible (some changes/work do take dilution worker proposals as they just do not generate fees by themselves). He will start proving BTS is not just a foundation with purpose of sponsoring his coding a new idea, seemingly every 2 weeks.

Then the other 'mild tone strong believers, but do nothing when money are involved' will follow suite and short at 7x collateral.... then the crazy longs buying bitBTC at 10 - 15- 20% premium will just buy BTC instead of pumping the bitAssets' prices up, for no logical reasons.

It's that simple.... Nubits fake pegs will fail (or they will grow to true market approaches), but copying those just cause they have not yet...is wrong.

PS
BTW I came of killer use case for bitUSD...available RIGHT NOW with a day or so of svk and xeroc's time...and got a zero response. Not a good sign for the above simple plan working...just saying.
PSS
BTW what's up? You are way over your limit of 888 posts.  ;)
« Last Edit: January 31, 2016, 04:23:01 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
I've been an advocate for this for some time, but for a different reason. We need a backstop (seller of last resort) for shorts while the market is not liquid.

Since squeeze protection kicks in after 10%, that means there is a "normally" operating market between 0-10%. Let the market do its thing within that range.


If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product imo.

Nubits cost you less than a few percent to buy and sell, UpholdUSD too I assume, so if you have a short holding period the risk of either of those failing isn't enough to justify paying a much larger spread for BitUSD.

We either need to incentivize the shorts to come closer during these market conditions/adjust the collateral requirements/other.

I agree with your recent believe "If you can't tighten the normal range of Smartcoins to <10%  then you don't have a product" ( I do not agree that we should go to Nubits gimmicks if need be. but it not here nor there).

And it is simple - it starts from the head - If BM shorts his BTS positions at something ridiculously high... say 7x collateral ratio he will prove he believes the product as well as the price will no go THAT much south, he will show (not just say) that he will search of ways to not dilute whenever possible (some changes/work do take dilution worker proposals as they just do not generate fees by themselves). He will start proving BTS is not just a foundation with purpose of sponsoring his coding a new idea, seemingly every 2 weeks.

Then the other 'mild tone strong believers, but do nothing when money are involved' will follow suite and short at 7x collateral.... then the crazy longs buying bitBTC at 10 - 15- 20% premium will just buy BTC instead of pumping the bitAssets' prices up, for no logical reasons.

It's that simple.... Nubits fake pegs will fail (or they will grow to true market approaches), but copying those just cause they have not yet...is wrong.

PS
BTW I came of killer use case for bitUSD...available RIGHT NOW with a day or so of svk and xeroc's time...and got a zero response. Not a good sign for the above simple plan working...just saying.
PSS
BTW what's up? You are way over your limit of 888 posts.  ;)
Where is that plan of yours and way do you assume I have the time to answer every post and ever proposal within 24h over the WEEKEND?
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
I agree use these funds trade for profit with none(low) risk, such as sell USD for CNY with 10% high price
but I don't agree trade with BTS, It's high risk.

If we don't have optunity to gain profit, we should use these money to support development  work.
this also can add supply for the liquility.

Offline JonnyB

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 636
    • View Profile
    • twitter.com/jonnybitcoin
[member=4465]alt[/member]

Please understand these are trade profits that belong to the reserve pool.
This has been discussed thoroughly on page 57 of stupid questions thread.
These belong and must be returned to the reserve pool.
Funds for development can be requested via a worker proposal, lets not muddy the sources of revenue like this please.
I run the @bitshares twitter handle
twitter.com/bitshares

Offline Empirical1.2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1366
    • View Profile
BTW what's up? You are way over your limit of 888 posts.  ;)

 :) I tried to upgrade to 1.3 at 888 but the forum wasn't sending me the confirmation email to register, so left it.


It's that simple.... Nubits fake pegs will fail (or they will grow to true market approaches), but copying those just cause they have not yet...is wrong.

I agree Nubits will probably fail.

I think we could introduce a separate high risk NuBits style BitAsset , similar to what I think BM suggested ages ago but I was against at the time.  All they do is direct funds used to purchase NBT to subsidize market makers. We could take a similar approach but we have our own exchange and could do it all autonomously.

NBT also paid out $400 000 in dividends in 2015 and is funding development of an exchange (not diluting shareholders) a BTS version wouldn't have those expenses so would be much better collateralized.

And it is simple - it starts from the head - If BM shorts his BTS positions at something ridiculously high... say 7x collateral ratio he will prove he believes the product as well as the price will no go THAT much south, he will show (not just say) that he will search of ways to not dilute whenever possible (some changes/work do take dilution worker proposals as they just do not generate fees by themselves). He will start proving BTS is not just a foundation with purpose of sponsoring his coding a new idea, seemingly every 2 weeks.

http://bytemaster.github.io/article/2016/01/04/The-Benefits-of-Proof-of-Work/

BM suggests rewarding people who lock up BTS. If those people locked up BTS and that locked up BTS was used to short BitAssets into existence with a high collateral ratio, that could help. I think it was Akado who suggested something along those lines too.

Long term though I think we need to provide incentives for shorts to come closer to the peg when BTS price expecations are neutral to negative otherwise the spread will always be too wide to be useful in these conditions.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2016, 03:12:26 pm by Empirical1.2 »
If you want to take the island burn the boats

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12915
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
No that the committee-trade account has the funds, and I finished up some extension of the exchange.py to allow proposing of trades ... I would like to resurrect this thread.

I'll propose the corresponding sell orders at +10% for everything we have in the committee-trade account later today, but would like to give everyone a last chance to voice their opinion
Give BitShares a try! Use the http://testnet.bitshares.eu provided by http://bitshares.eu powered by ChainSquad GmbH

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4516
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
No that the committee-trade account has the funds, and I finished up some extension of the exchange.py to allow proposing of trades ... I would like to resurrect this thread.

I'll propose the corresponding sell orders at +10% for everything we have in the committee-trade account later today, but would like to give everyone a last chance to voice their opinion
I propose that we set different start point for different assets, lower by 1% everyday, to a bottom.
* set the bottom as 5%
* if current premium of an asset in the market is less than 5%, place ask order at 5%
* if current premium of an asset is greater than 15%, place the order at 15% for the first time, then lower by 1% everyday
* if current premium of an asset is between 15% and 5%, place the order at ([current premium] -1%), then lower by 1% everyday

The "current premium" described above should not simply be the lowest ask price, it should be with a total volume (market depth) which is not less than 1/2 of amount of the committee-trade account wants to sell.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Thom

For simplicity once the order is placed on the books at +10% maybe it should be left there. Trying to adjust it adds un needed complexity.
even if the order isn't executed for months it will still be good for the system as it adds depth.

Simple is best. Perhaps the committee should collect and sell the fees on the first day of every month and leave them there.
This would make it simple for the rest of us to quickly audit what has happened.

What to do with the BTS earned from the sells though?
Recharge the fee pools.

What is the source of these assets in the committee account? Based on the above they didn't get there by charging a fee for something.

BTW - what is a "fee pool" The term would imply to me it is the account(s) which accumulate or track all fees paid for transactions, trades, memberships etc. If that is correct, why do they require "Recharging"? That seems to tell me we are operating at a loss. What depletes the fee pool(s)? I would assume worker pay and witness pay are 2 expenses that do, but was under the impression expenses for workers are self regulating (pay is reduced as funds / vote support dries up).

Perhaps I'm just a slow old man but this shit is complicated, I can't get a clear picture from the bursts of dots coming from this forum, mumble and xeroc's docs. A little help with this jigsaw puzzle would be greatly appreciated. Also, the OP in this thread is presumably related to the bug? discovered on the multisig committee account. I have yet to see an answer to my question about how a new multisig committee-trade account wouldn't also be plagued with the same bug.  I'll get to it, just haven't reached it yet in my reading. I assume there's a good answer to that question otherwise this thread doesn't make a lot of sense.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
For simplicity once the order is placed on the books at +10% maybe it should be left there. Trying to adjust it adds un needed complexity.
even if the order isn't executed for months it will still be good for the system as it adds depth.

Simple is best. Perhaps the committee should collect and sell the fees on the first day of every month and leave them there.
This would make it simple for the rest of us to quickly audit what has happened.

What to do with the BTS earned from the sells though?
Recharge the fee pools.

What is the source of these assets in the committee account? Based on the above they didn't get there by charging a fee for something.

BTW - what is a "fee pool" The term would imply to me it is the account(s) which accumulate or track all fees paid for transactions, trades, memberships etc. If that is correct, why do they require "Recharging"? That seems to tell me we are operating at a loss. What depletes the fee pool(s)? I would assume worker pay and witness pay are 2 expenses that do, but was under the impression expenses for workers are self regulating (pay is reduced as funds / vote support dries up).

Perhaps I'm just a slow old man but this shit is complicated, I can't get a clear picture from the bursts of dots coming from this forum, mumble and xeroc's docs. A little help with this jigsaw puzzle would be greatly appreciated. Also, the OP in this thread is presumably related to the bug? discovered on the multisig committee account. I have yet to see an answer to my question about how a new multisig committee-trade account wouldn't also be plagued with the same bug.  I'll get to it, just haven't reached it yet in my reading. I assume there's a good answer to that question otherwise this thread doesn't make a lot of sense.
On the fee pools - they are easy.
 when someone pays the transfer of trade fee in anything other than BTS. The BTS from that pool are used to pay the fee in BTS (to the blockchain)... so those pools end up with the asset say bitUSD and are depleted from the BTS.
BTW the exchange rate is positive (aka they buy the bitUSD below the feed price) so they kind of make some profit.

MultySig is not my strong suite so this might be wrong but:
the new account (trade-something) is for just few of the committee  and not all members, so with the bug or not the committee account is controlled by all members.
« Last Edit: February 12, 2016, 02:22:46 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.