Quote from: bitcrab on December 04, 2018, 09:22:25 am

Quote from: alt on December 04, 2018, 08:55:42 am

I didn't see any point to  get profit from it, if you have you should do it.
As a trader I will never borrow a cent  if you can make me margin call without  price of BTS change, sometimes even when BTS price increase.

can I manipulate the feed price at will? or any witness can? if I can why I let my accounts be margin called?

I understand that because bsip42 let witnesses feed price following a complex logic, it introduce some uncertainty that make traders do not feel good, so in the newly advised alternative solution witnesses only feed price and premium data, which are easy to verify accurate or not, the negative feedback logic will be done by the system in a low frequency.

the system need negative feedback logic, the rule of original system is far from satisfactory and cannot sustain the dream of Bitshares. and I don't think we can call DEX free market only when we make no change to the rules.

As a trader, I don't care if you can manipulate the price or not.
All I known is that my debt could be margin call even when the price of BTS increase.
Why I need to take this risk? 
You have a good expect, but nobody will play with your in this market rule.

as some time ago the voting power that oppose BSIP42 overcome that support BSIP42, most of the witnesses return to feed just market price, immediately the BTS/bitCNY price fall about 8%, although more margin call orders are eaten, but:

1. price fall continue， bitCNY holders seems to wait for lower price, no big will to eat current margin call orders.

2. bitCNY has a premium of about 10%, it's a disaster for bitCNY business.

3.more debt position margin called, not obvious margin call quantity reduction.

actually witnesses need to be careful while doing a big change, it is not a good behavior to just change while seeing the voting result - no one host/claim/announce the voting activity, it is likely that some balance owner change lead to this result, please be careful while seeing this!

now I greatly propose: 
 
1. witnesses please restart BSIP42, however according to what we learn in the past, I suggest to add black swan protection logic, and ensure the feed price is not lower than market price and not higher than market price*MSSR.

Quote from: alt on November 28, 2018, 05:11:17 am

Quote from: bitcrab on November 28, 2018, 04:31:11 am

positive feedback appear again.

margin called order eaten -> global settlement price come down-> feed price come down->more debt position margin called.

in several hours the margin called orders quantity changed from 70M+ to 90M+. and bitCNY become in premium again.

will it be better to set feed price = max(market price*MSSR, black swan protection price)?

it's just another UI bug when you saw the quantity changed from 70M to 90M
And we don't need to change feed price to market price * MSSR, instead it should be the commiittee's authority to tune the MSSR from 10% to 1% or something else to reduce the premium,
but still need to give some premium offter others help eatern the margin call orders.

MSSR is a price feed parameter which can only be adjusted by witnesses, not the committee.

By the way, the "NO adjust" worker has more votes than the "adjust" worker, according to the BSIP document, witnesses should not feed adjusted price right now.

margin call orders price is higher than market price -  this is the consequence of BSIP42.

we need to consider the next step when bitCNY revive or even bitUSD revive.

in my view, one choice is to replace BSIP42 with the dynamic MCR solution, and feed price will be the real market price.

if feed price be the market price, I believe the margin call orders will always be eaten, only in very seldom scenario the margin call orders will stay there without being eaten.

is it really necessary to introduce more methods to solve the issues that will disappear and increase more complexity?

The difference in the price feed results from BSIP42, which goal is to create a tight peg of bitCNY to CNY.

To clarify: No bitUSD were converted to BTS during the glocal settlement. People lost their margin positions, which are now owned by the settlement fund. But they still have the same value in BTS as before. Loosing your margin position means you lost your leverage which would kick in when BTS price is rising, you can now bid on the collateral of the settlement fund to get your position back and facilitating the revival.

The node hotfix is indirectly related. There was a bug in the bid_collateral method that allows to revive a globally settled asset, which was pretty much never used so far but now with bitUSD globally settled people started the bidding. I would say the swift reaction of the core team in fixing the bug and getting the chain operational again is a very strong argument pro BTS, and not against. Just like any other Software, a Blockchain can have bugs. Question is how you deal with them.

Cheers,
 Stefan

Quote from: xeroc on November 26, 2018, 02:19:57 pm

Quote from: pc on November 26, 2018, 01:20:10 pm

As discussed on telegram - the same can be achieved by a trader going short and selling into a margin call.

Or at least that *would* be possible if the feed price wasn't manipulated in such a way that margin calls don't happen.

Actually, there is a difference.

Currently, anyone with BTS can put an order above margin calls to prevent sell from matching a margin call - it instead is matched against the order book.

Economically, for sellers of bitAssets, it doesn't make sense to eat margin calls when there are limit orders buying with better price. So essentially we need to find a way to always match margin calls before limit orders, which is against the purpose of MSSR parameter (at least need to find a balance).


On the other hand, OP essentially made it easier to create debt positions, which will encourage borrowing to an extent, which probably may (or may not) accurate more risks. Currently, to eat a margin call, you need to put sufficient collateral in the first place, after eaten you can add the bought asset to collateral, which effectively increases final collateral ratio.

When debt position owners don't close their position even when the price is very low, they either have no money to pay the debt, or just don't care about the collateral anymore. From this perspective, applying more penalty makes little difference.