So, you did ask it fuzz! for that.
The only thing left is BM ducking the follow up question "Why was it kept hidden for well after launch."
But it is a great step on fuzzy's part. You see, fuzz, it is not that dangerous to ask the tough questions - even the long winded prelude that 'the q does not come from you', is not necessary, and can be cut to: "Here is what XYZ asks..."
@tonyk, I'm starting to think you actually enjoy being misunderstood.
From now on I'm going to be very careful when walking over your sarcastic minefield and shall not take a single word of yours at its face value.
Nevertheless, I begin to suspect that your whole point boils down to the conclusion that actually nothing is wrong with the current trading rules and you are just upset that those rules were not communicated clearly before Oct 13th.
Is this correct, tonyk?
Nope - the hiding of the new rules is indeed truly real bad element of the whole story, but the rules themselves are bad enough on their own.
So, BM claims that the 'screw the shorts' rate is there, so to have less dependency on feeds. Yet the actual number is derived by multiplying the feed price by this rate. How is this making us less dependent of feeds is beyond my ability to comprehend.
The above being the rules, this leads "to expecting the sellers to sell for less when they can sell for more" - that is according to BM's believes, "in a liquid market" he says "that's is to be expected."
For me this is basing the market on an expectation for illogical behavior from the market participants.
PS
The believe by BM , and I think some people around here agree with his logic, is that the bitUSD sellers [in a deep and liquid market] will compete with each other and so they will drive the price down... where I see this lacking logic is - so, they will
compete for some possible but uncertain trade
at lower price, when on the order book exist real available party to which they can sell? And seller at higher price? => expectations for illogical behavior by your model guys.
PSS
The whole debate, would have been more clear to more people if everybody was using the standard pricing we see in our local stores - i.e. 0.47 USD for a can of coke, corn with a price of 2usd/pound etc. But some people insist that the *right* way to express prices is "6.6808 cans of coke for 3.14USD, houses with an offer price of 4.54e-6 houses per dollar etc", so it becomes even harder to follow who is saying what....when one says higher does he really means lower, is it X/1.75 or X*1.75...