0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
IMHO, re-writing the terms of financial derivative contracts after people have bought them is ethically perilous and will do more damage to our credibility than the alternative.
But generally I don't think there will be a need to reset the market every 30 days.
OK next question (as you like). Tell me how the two side are different and the ideology that allows to punish the sellers but not the buyer?
Tonyk your tone and attitude does not reflect well on you or this forum. There are reasonable people here weighing complex options and we all want the best. Please communicate without name calling. It was not pleasant for me to read and I am sure others feel the same.
Quote from: tonyk on October 01, 2014, 02:04:56 amQuote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 02:00:37 amQuote from: tonyk on October 01, 2014, 01:39:05 amAnd here is the other side of the equation:how about we restrict the longs to also buy just at the beg?It will definitely fortify the peg. Everybody is selling and buying just and only at the peg, and the shorts compete just by the amount of collateral provided.Perfect peg. No? What more one can ask for...You can't restrict free trade/exchange between BTSX and BitUSD... the trading could just move off chain.I agree that you should not, ... but your system just did that for one side of the trade... so what prevents us to do the same for the other counterparty? And it will inforce the peg like... iceIt's not the same at all and the "two sides of the trade" are not equivalent. When you are in the business of shorting bitAssets there's really no limit to how much you can sell.
Quote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 02:00:37 amQuote from: tonyk on October 01, 2014, 01:39:05 amAnd here is the other side of the equation:how about we restrict the longs to also buy just at the beg?It will definitely fortify the peg. Everybody is selling and buying just and only at the peg, and the shorts compete just by the amount of collateral provided.Perfect peg. No? What more one can ask for...You can't restrict free trade/exchange between BTSX and BitUSD... the trading could just move off chain.I agree that you should not, ... but your system just did that for one side of the trade... so what prevents us to do the same for the other counterparty? And it will inforce the peg like... ice
Quote from: tonyk on October 01, 2014, 01:39:05 amAnd here is the other side of the equation:how about we restrict the longs to also buy just at the beg?It will definitely fortify the peg. Everybody is selling and buying just and only at the peg, and the shorts compete just by the amount of collateral provided.Perfect peg. No? What more one can ask for...You can't restrict free trade/exchange between BTSX and BitUSD... the trading could just move off chain.
And here is the other side of the equation:how about we restrict the longs to also buy just at the beg?It will definitely fortify the peg. Everybody is selling and buying just and only at the peg, and the shorts compete just by the amount of collateral provided.Perfect peg. No? What more one can ask for...
In the prior system:You used your $10,000 worth of BTSX to short 10,000 bitUSD, You only got $9,500 worth of BTSX from the buyer ($500 went to fees because you were competing on fees.)
Quote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 01:25:03 amHow "short lived" the highly collateralized positions are is irrelevant if you always have compete to put up high collateral whenever you re-short. It may not have made a huge difference overnight because there are still a lot of low collateral positions out there, but if those are forced closed or we started the system with collateral prioritization from the beginning then you would see the difference.Ok, let assume for now they are highly collateralized (not the main objective of your proposal, (but I agree that finding a solution to increase collateral it is good) ,btw). How this makes the peg tighter?
How "short lived" the highly collateralized positions are is irrelevant if you always have compete to put up high collateral whenever you re-short. It may not have made a huge difference overnight because there are still a lot of low collateral positions out there, but if those are forced closed or we started the system with collateral prioritization from the beginning then you would see the difference.
Quote from: tonyk on October 01, 2014, 12:10:49 amQuote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:01:17 amQuote from: mf-tzo on September 30, 2014, 11:46:20 pmQuoteI guess I just don't see people "dropping their pants" to unload bitUSD if they know that holding for less than a year will give them face value. I'm not saying your view doesn't have merit but I think if it's that critical the over-creation of bitUSD probably already happened and now most will be grandfathered anyway - it would be kind of nice to reset the market in the short run.I didn't make any sense from that comment but then again I am tired so I better go to sleep now..What do you mean "reset the market in the short run"?I'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.So if (short_order_opened(time) >= 30 days, close_order());is a lot of work, but new rules for shorts is not?Sorry, I didn't mean that it was a lot of work to change the code. I'm saying it is more work for shorters to have to re-short every 30 days (not more work for programmers)
Quote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:01:17 amQuote from: mf-tzo on September 30, 2014, 11:46:20 pmQuoteI guess I just don't see people "dropping their pants" to unload bitUSD if they know that holding for less than a year will give them face value. I'm not saying your view doesn't have merit but I think if it's that critical the over-creation of bitUSD probably already happened and now most will be grandfathered anyway - it would be kind of nice to reset the market in the short run.I didn't make any sense from that comment but then again I am tired so I better go to sleep now..What do you mean "reset the market in the short run"?I'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.So if (short_order_opened(time) >= 30 days, close_order());is a lot of work, but new rules for shorts is not?
Quote from: mf-tzo on September 30, 2014, 11:46:20 pmQuoteI guess I just don't see people "dropping their pants" to unload bitUSD if they know that holding for less than a year will give them face value. I'm not saying your view doesn't have merit but I think if it's that critical the over-creation of bitUSD probably already happened and now most will be grandfathered anyway - it would be kind of nice to reset the market in the short run.I didn't make any sense from that comment but then again I am tired so I better go to sleep now..What do you mean "reset the market in the short run"?I'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.
QuoteI guess I just don't see people "dropping their pants" to unload bitUSD if they know that holding for less than a year will give them face value. I'm not saying your view doesn't have merit but I think if it's that critical the over-creation of bitUSD probably already happened and now most will be grandfathered anyway - it would be kind of nice to reset the market in the short run.I didn't make any sense from that comment but then again I am tired so I better go to sleep now..What do you mean "reset the market in the short run"?
I guess I just don't see people "dropping their pants" to unload bitUSD if they know that holding for less than a year will give them face value. I'm not saying your view doesn't have merit but I think if it's that critical the over-creation of bitUSD probably already happened and now most will be grandfathered anyway - it would be kind of nice to reset the market in the short run.
Quote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:55:36 amHow can you say that prioritizing by collateral won't increase the collateral? Of course it does and this means that bitUSD will have more collateral securing it which should give bitUSD holders greater confidence.Sorry, for deleting the rest of your inconsistent statements (if you disagree we can argue on them separately).Easily so, highly collateralized short lived position do not increase the overall collateralization... by much...but this is just a tiny bit of my problems with the whole system...BTW, this is the last time I am proving to you why your system does not work. From now on expect, you to prove why it does!Nothing personal, I am generally not in the business of proving negative facts! Do you want me to ask the same question I asked the NuBits guy?
How can you say that prioritizing by collateral won't increase the collateral? Of course it does and this means that bitUSD will have more collateral securing it which should give bitUSD holders greater confidence.
Quote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:27:12 amQuote from: dat peg doe on October 01, 2014, 12:10:49 amQuote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:01:17 amI'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.So if (short_order_opened(time) >= 30 days, close_order());is a lot of work, but new rules for shorts is not?Why are the new rules for shorts "a lot of work"?I don't see how they are more work. As a short, you pay less fees, you can specify your bottom line price, and can now specify collateral (I think most people prefer this over a two step partial cover).Do not bushtit me... explain how they(the new rules) increase the volume and / or the collateral...You promised both they do neither, in my view. (and sorry we all know you are the only one here with a full time job)Sorry for the high burden I put on you by asking.
Quote from: dat peg doe on October 01, 2014, 12:10:49 amQuote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:01:17 amI'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.So if (short_order_opened(time) >= 30 days, close_order());is a lot of work, but new rules for shorts is not?Why are the new rules for shorts "a lot of work"?I don't see how they are more work. As a short, you pay less fees, you can specify your bottom line price, and can now specify collateral (I think most people prefer this over a two step partial cover).
Quote from: Agent86 on October 01, 2014, 12:01:17 amI'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.So if (short_order_opened(time) >= 30 days, close_order());is a lot of work, but new rules for shorts is not?
I'm just describing forced covering as "resetting the market" (all positions are opened new from scratch and excess bitassets are removed from circulation).My point was that there is a limit to how much people will undervalue their bitassets when they know they just have to wait a bit to get the full value. Making shorts re-short every month seems like a lot of work to me.
QuoteOlder shorts entered before this hard fork will be grandfathered in with a 1 year deadline. Imho this is not very fair... I was very bullish before BTSX was even launched, but could not short because of lack of information, instructions, bugs in the GUI etc.. If everything was clear and working properly I would have shorted @ 45 - 65 range instead of buying BTSX in the exchanges..Now, people holding short positions at these levels will now have the additional opportunity to keep their orders for 1 year, when others who still experience problems shorting will have to re short within 1 month. On the other hand I am totally on board that there should be 1 month of expiration. But 1 year to keep open positions for the ones that had the technical knowledge and the competitive advantage of shorting which normally should be people bullish with large capital is too much. In the end of the day for all of us in here it was a no brainer that since the client is launched BTSX would skyrocket.. Not much of a risk to take..The risk is higher now, with bitcoin price and all cryptos falling day by day, than 1 month ago. So why not make it max 2-3 months instead of 1 year?The other question is, what happens if on the specific day that I have to cover my short I am on holidays and I don't have access to cover? How will the system treat my position?
Older shorts entered before this hard fork will be grandfathered in with a 1 year deadline.
I guess I just don't see people "dropping their pants" to unload bitUSD if they know that holding for less than a year will give them face value.
I'm not saying your view doesn't have merit but I think if it's that critical the over-creation of bitUSD probably already happened and now most will be grandfathered anyway - it would be kind of nice to reset the market in the short run.
If the price rose, then re-shorting the same number of BitUSD would require more collateral.E.g. if price is at 30 BTSX / BitUSD today and you short 100 BitUSD. Then BitUSD rises to 40 tomorrow, then drops to 20 in 6 months. With one-year expiry, you have 3000 BTSX tied up for 6 months. With one-month expiry, you have 3000 BTSX tied up for one month, then you have to re-short at 40 which ties up 4000 BTSX for the remaining 5 months (unless you re-short less than 100 BitUSD).
Quote from: mf-tzo on Today at 11:18:59 PMI think it is very important to have an expiry date of 1 month. This will definitely create confidence for liquidity of bitusd and create buying pressure for bitusd. You can always re short if you want so I don't understand what is the benefit for holding a short position for 1 year (even for the old shorts)...The theoretical benefit for a short for being able to hold a losing short position is that it is effectively the same as letting you re-short with less than 200% collateral which is higher leverage."It's not what the shorts want, but it's what the longs need" - dan
You can always re short if you want so I don't understand what is the benefit for holding a short position for 1 year (even for the old shorts)...
Quote from: Agent86 on September 30, 2014, 11:05:16 pmForced 30 day covering feels pretty aggressive to me. I feel like having it just be one year (consistent with the inactivity fee) would be fine. I'm not saying there's a right answer but it seems unnecessarily short to me. I think the main benefit of a new short window would only be achieved if current shorts were not grandfathered in - we could sort of hit the reset button on the market that may have created a bit too much bitUSD supply in the early days without short restriction. I don't think there's a moral imperative to give current shorts an exception but it is what it is… I'm just not sure having a short 30 day with grandfathering cover has a real advantage over a one year force cover.It is very necessary because without it the varying demand for BitUSD will cause the peg to suffer.... suppose there is a massive increase in BitUSD demand (BTSX Bubble) so the supply doubles pairing to shorts who don't want to cover for a year. Then all of a sudden people want out of BitUSD (Bubble is Over)... there are not enough buyers on the market and the long-term shorts don't want to cover (they have potentially lost money as BTSX was falling so don't want to realize their loss. The only solution the market has at this point is for BitUSD holders to sell at a loss large enough to motivate long-term holders. The fact that they are selling at a loss will discourage future BitUSD holders from buying. In the long-run, you can increase the forced covering period or remove it all together... but in a young illiquid market it is certainly necessary to ensure that there is plenty of liquidity and that BitUSD will always revert to the peg within a month of any increase in supply.
Forced 30 day covering feels pretty aggressive to me. I feel like having it just be one year (consistent with the inactivity fee) would be fine. I'm not saying there's a right answer but it seems unnecessarily short to me. I think the main benefit of a new short window would only be achieved if current shorts were not grandfathered in - we could sort of hit the reset button on the market that may have created a bit too much bitUSD supply in the early days without short restriction. I don't think there's a moral imperative to give current shorts an exception but it is what it is… I'm just not sure having a short 30 day with grandfathering cover has a real advantage over a one year force cover.
I think it is very important to have an expiry date of 1 month. This will definitely create confidence for liquidity of bitusd and create buying pressure for bitusd. You can always re short if you want so I don't understand what is the benefit for holding a short position for 1 year (even for the old shorts)...
I'm a little confused because I thought that shorts are required to facilitate growth in the supply of BitAssets. By forcing them to shorter term speculative views, won't this limit supply growth, as well as making it very highly unstable? Its possible there will be times when a huge part of the short book (i.e. supply) is closed in a month and not re-opened for some time depending on the balance os supply and demand at that point.Also, whenever shorts are forced to cover, that necessarily closes out a group of longs - doesn't that make holding BitUSD more uncertain for merchants and other potential users, if they have to keep constant tabs on whether they are holding BitUSD or BTSX? This makes BitUSD less useful?
When your short order is executed you will be given 30 days until a mandatory cover (without fee) is executed. This is done to enhance the Nash Equilibrium that will cause shorts to take opportunities to cover at a profit anytime there is deviation from the peg. After 30 days this will create continual buying pressure on BitUSD. This will reduce the demand for shorts that are only "long-term" bullish and cause them to be more "medium term" speculators. If you want to go "long term short" then you will have to cover and re-short monthly. You maximize your profits by covering and re-shorting when there is the greatest deviation from the peg.This is in line with traditional financial instruments such as futures contracts that always have a maturity date. Older shorts entered before this hard fork will be grandfathered in with a 1 year deadline. This also provides liquidity from shorts that have lost their keys and are unable to cover and forces shorts that are losing ground to "re-up" their collateral.
Quote from: bytemaster on September 30, 2014, 07:10:41 pmWhen your short order is executed you will be given 30 days until a mandatory cover (without fee) is executed. This is done to enhance the Nash Equilibrium that will cause shorts to take opportunities to cover at a profit anytime there is deviation from the peg. After 30 days this will create continual buying pressure on BitUSD. This will reduce the demand for shorts that are only "long-term" bullish and cause them to be more "medium term" speculators. If you want to go "long term short" then you will have to cover and re-short monthly. You maximize your profits by covering and re-shorting when there is the greatest deviation from the peg.This is in line with traditional financial instruments such as futures contracts that always have a maturity date. Older shorts entered before this hard fork will be grandfathered in with a 1 year deadline. This also provides liquidity from shorts that have lost their keys and are unable to cover and forces shorts that are losing ground to "re-up" their collateral. Will the GUI clearly provide the time to covering in our list of open shorts? Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2