Should the Bitshares committee surrender overreaching MPA permissions?

[KenMonkey]

Interesting debate. It's hugely unlikely any committee would activate these permissions and perhaps the committee having the nuclear options will encourage more people to vote or at least use someone they trust as a proxy.

[Chris4210]

Potentially the 'override_authority: Issuer may transfer asset back to himself' permission could be used to recover an MPA from a black swan event/state.

Yes, that would be a good but extreme example for that. I would like to keep these options as they are today and make a better decision down the road. We still have a long way to go with the DEX and we don´t know how the future will look like in 3-4 years. Many features that we have today are not fully working yet due to lack of liquidity. I think it would be wrong to surrender so early.

[R]

Potentially the 'override_authority: Issuer may transfer asset back to himself' permission could be used to recover an MPA from a black swan event/state.

[Chronos]

Interesting. I'd like to hear what people think.

[R]

Please correct me if I am wrong but you can only change these features once right? So if we surrender these features today we cannot turn them back again, right? So if we change them we can not adjust to any future market conditions where we might use these features.

That would be almost like the block size debate in Bitcoin. I would prefer a more flexible system.

Indeed, surrendering these permissions would be a one-way street, so any action would need discussed by all committee members (and the rest of the BTS community).

[karnal]

I'm not sure that there should ever be a reason for anyone to be able to "call home" everyone's bitUSD.

[Chris4210]

Please correct me if I am wrong but you can only change these features once right? So if we surrender these features today we cannot turn them back again, right? So if we change them we can not adjust to any future market conditions where we might use these features.

That would be almost like the block size debate in Bitcoin. I would prefer a more flexible system.

[R]

Currently, the 'smartcoin' market pegged assets (MPA) (such as bitUSD, bitEURO, bitCNY, etc) which are managed by the BTS committee have several MPA permissions which are slightly concerning. None of these permissions are currently active, but they have not been surrendered (so a future committee could potentially implement them).

These permissions are:

• white_list: Accounts must be white-listed in order to hold this asset
• override_authority: Issuer may transfer asset back to himself
• transfer_restricted: Require the issuer to be one party to every transfer
• disable_confidential: Allow the asset to be used with confidential transactions

The 'GRIDCOIN' MPA was the first MPA to surrender the above permissions! (https://cryptofresh.com/a/GRIDCOIN)

I don't see any reason why the committee should maintain these inactive permissions, do you?

Related Steem thread: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cm-steem/should-the-bitshares-committee-surrender-overreaching-mpa-permissions

Cheers,
CM.