Hello 👋

[binggo]

if using the global settlement to crash all the debtors, then the confidence and liquidity will lost very quickly, no one want to come in again.

if using the BSIP71 or lock the feed price, the devalue of bitasset will become very seriously, the market will lost confidence very quickly too, and will harm the benifit of the holder of bitasset, they will leave very quickly.

You think anyone has any confidence left in bitassets to lose? It's entirely gone now mate, people are already unlikely to return. bitCNY & bitUSD have already been SEVERELY devalued, upwards of 71% as mentioned above, there is ZERO benefit to the asset holder from this, thus there can be no confidence in these dead scam coins any more. BSIP76 proponents chose this future, it cannot be forgotten. IMO they should lose the 'bit' prefix for being confirmed scam assets.

We are talking different thing, you just want to complain something again and again, didn't have any new thoughts appears, just want to follow the failed design by BM, sorry about that, talking is over.

[sahkan]

if using the global settlement to crash all the debtors, then the confidence and liquidity will lost very quickly, no one want to come in again.

if using the BSIP71 or lock the feed price, the devalue of bitasset will become very seriously, the market will lost confidence very quickly too, and will harm the benifit of the holder of bitasset, they will leave very quickly.

You think anyone has any confidence left in bitassets to lose? It's entirely gone now mate, people are already unlikely to return. bitCNY & bitUSD have already been SEVERELY devalued, upwards of 71% as mentioned above, there is ZERO benefit to the asset holder from this, thus there can be no confidence in these dead scam coins any more. BSIP76 proponents chose this future, it cannot be forgotten. IMO they should lose the 'bit' prefix for being confirmed scam assets.

Good point. ScamCNY and ScamUSD should be more of their true reflection. I'm not sure why people even buy them anymore. But the good thing, nobody has to buy them if they don't want to. Unfortunate.

[R]

if using the global settlement to crash all the debtors, then the confidence and liquidity will lost very quickly, no one want to come in again.

if using the BSIP71 or lock the feed price, the devalue of bitasset will become very seriously, the market will lost confidence very quickly too, and will harm the benifit of the holder of bitasset, they will leave very quickly.

You think anyone has any confidence left in bitassets to lose? It's entirely gone now mate, people are already unlikely to return. bitCNY & bitUSD have already been SEVERELY devalued, upwards of 71% as mentioned above, there is ZERO benefit to the asset holder from this, thus there can be no confidence in these dead scam coins any more. BSIP76 proponents chose this future, it cannot be forgotten. IMO they should lose the 'bit' prefix for being confirmed scam assets.

[binggo]

https://cdn.bytom.io/res/MOV-Stable-EN.pdf

I went through your team's paper.  So it seems like you will try to achieve a targeted price by fee charge that will be determined by both your models and the price feed.  The fees charged will be the interest rate provided to the pegged asset holders.  Its almost acting like a federal reserve that tries to influence the federal funds rate, but without the ability to buy and sell reserves.

Correct me if I'm correct? 

This would have a real lag problem. 

Bonds also can deviate tremendous from their underlying assets they cover because of the lack of liquidity in the system.  Not sure how you solve that end of the problem.

Take part of it out, then use on bitasset.
Even have a little lag problem, we didn't need to copy all of it.

You should find there have two methods to adjust the liquidity from supply-side in 2.4, we seems didn't need to use all of these, we just use the Bonds to handle the bad debts.

If the market can develop and have income sustainable, the liquidity will recover very quickly as the market environment become good and the Bonds will be bought back slowly.

Yes, the bonds also can deviate tremendous, the best result is ZERO, every bitasset market have different situation, then the time that buy back all the Bonds will be very different.
We must clear one point: The Bonds just a method, with it, the bad debt can be handled more quickly, if didn't have it, this will become very slowly.

The "liquidity" of stable coin market come from the confidence of the market.
if using the global settlement to crash all the debtors, then the confidence and liquidity will lost very quickly, no one want to come in again.
We have eight bitassets were global settlement, the truth is cruel.

if using the BSIP71 or lock the feed price, the devalue of bitasset will become very seriously, the market will lost confidence very quickly too, and will harm the benifit of the holder of bitasset, they will leave very quickly.
We knew the situation now.

if we use an account or a pool to take charge of the bad debts, the income and the Bonds of this bitasset market will slowly cover the bad debts, didn't need the global settlement and the BSIP71 or lock the feed price, if the holders of bitassets believe and be sure the market will become good, he should buy the Bonds.

[Bitcoinfan]

https://cdn.bytom.io/res/MOV-Stable-EN.pdf

I went through your team's paper.  So it seems like you will try to achieve a targeted price by fee charge that will be determined by both your models and the price feed.  The fees charged will be the interest rate provided to the pegged asset holders.  Its almost acting like a federal reserve that tries to influence the federal funds rate, but without the ability to buy and sell reserves.

Correct me if I'm correct? 

This would have a real lag problem. 

Bonds also can deviate tremendous from their underlying assets they cover because of the lack of liquidity in the system.  Not sure how you solve that end of the problem.

[sahkan]

Lol @Bytemaster, you probably don't even read these... but I think Bitshares promised to be a DEX but in reality it is just a blockchain interface for a CEX. And now some faulty DPOS fundamentals (like borrowed votes through bitAssets) are making the chain almost worthless, sad really. Only RUDEX and @litepresence are holding it up.

[binggo]

In other words, if the market can develop and have income sustainable, it can issue "stability bond" to handle these bad debts.

Can you explain the stability bond?

https://cdn.bytom.io/res/MOV-Stable-EN.pdf

[Bitcoinfan]

In other words, if the market can develop and have income sustainable, it can issue "stability bond" to handle these bad debts.

Can you explain the stability bond? 

[binggo]

The ratio of debt/collateral can't avoid this Black Swan global settlement trigger, price can fall down and down to trigger it.

I thought a global settlement trigger happens when there isn't enough collateral in $Value backing it to match the amount of BitUSD?  So having not enough collateral is part of the problem?

The problem of global settlement is if one debt became insolvent all debts will be global settlement，just like a customer of a bank can't pay off his debt and became insolvent，then the bank will be global settlement.

Yes, having not enough collateral is part of the problem, but shouldn't global settlement all the pledgor.

In other words, if the market can develop and have income sustainable, it can issue "stability bond" to handle these bad debts.

[Bitcoinfan]

The ratio of debt/collateral can't avoid this Black Swan global settlement trigger, price can fall down and down to trigger it.

I thought a global settlement trigger happens when there isn't enough collateral in $Value backing it to match the amount of BitUSD?  So having not enough collateral is part of the problem?

[binggo]

Hi Folks,

Haven't been here in a while, but intrigueing to see how things have changed.

What level of debt / collateral would have been sufficient to avoid this Black Swan global settlement trigger?  I assume 1.5X is still the minimum requirement?  Would a 3X or 4X have prevented it?  If I remember correctly, getting to 3X and 4X is a whole another question of liquidity, and no shorter is willing to put up that amount.

I'm gathering BTS avoided a global settlement by using a peg freeze that was introduced in BSIP76?

First, the global settlement is very foolish.

The ratio of debt/collateral can't avoid this Black Swan global settlement trigger, price can fall down and down to trigger it.

The right way is how to handle the bad debt, not use peg freeze, not use global settlement, we can find the right way easily in the realistic financial market, yes, it is  "stability bond"!

[Bitcoinfan]

Hi Folks,

Haven't been here in a while, but intrigueing to see how things have changed.

What level of debt / collateral would have been sufficient to avoid this Black Swan global settlement trigger?  I assume 1.5X is still the minimum requirement?  Would a 3X or 4X have prevented it?  If I remember correctly, getting to 3X and 4X is a whole another question of liquidity, and no shorter is willing to put up that amount.

I'm gathering BTS avoided a global settlement by using a peg freeze that was introduced in BSIP76?

[jckj]

How did BitShares handle the market crash?

I still have 3 funder users could not work properly, could u solve those problem?

[jckj]

Your know the problem is starting  from your poor consideration. keydns,XTS all has became air now. So crash will be normal , bts, steem EOS all will crash, In my opinion。 You see,  Reinvent all will be the best solution but should move to further than most ones imagination.  We have started new things, Welcome to join the event. New world is coming... Big than bitcoin and blockchain... https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32236.0
En Version:Reinvent keyid keyhotee bitshares https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=31901

[R]

How did BitShares handle the market crash?

The Bitshares network remained fully operational, however bitUSD & bitCNY have not fared well at all.

BSIP76 established a 'minimum feed threshold price', once BTS price goes below this value the feeding mechanism stops accurately feeding the real reference feed price, instead resorting to a false fixed feed value.

This has triggered twice now, once back in late 2019 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29654.0;all) which lasted several months, and now once again for more than a week due to the recent price collapse.

This is mandatory socialized loss of value to bitUSD/bitCNY holders to benefit debt holders (bad gamblers), as such these bitassets are no longer legitimate stores of value.

Vote weight should have been revoked once placed into debt positions, as bitasset holders had no say in this mandatory theft of value.

bitUSD with a fixed feed of 29 BTS/bitUSD at the lowest BTS price of $0.009265 (on 13th march 2020) equates to $0.268685 , 73% below the peg, even if you account for an MCR of 1.6x0.268685 that's only 0.429896 ie this is blatanty global settlement territory.

Since the price feeding and global settlement mechanisms have been cheated there exists no logical reason to hold these assets long term as that simply leads to theft of asset value instead of an opportunity to grow ones BTS balance.

What's pretty nuts though is that the official bitshares.org website still doesn't mention any of this thread's concepts/history, rather it continues to mislead investors with an old vision of what bitassets should have been. https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/ Changes have been proposed to correct these inaccuracies, some feedback would be great https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares.org/pull/111

In the meantime, all participants can rest assured that BitUSD is always worth at least $1, and can consider the premium for entering the ecosystem as a one-time fee.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G4Uw3m_dPpw