Forced cover doesn't happen until a short falls below 150% collateral.  I had an open short myself that was at 164% collateral.  60 USD short, with a BTS collateral of about 98.4 USD.  I believe the forced margin call would happen at 150% a.k.a. 66% of collateral, but I've not seen a forced cover on any of my personal transactions.

https://github.com/BitShares/bitshares/blob/master/libraries/blockchain/market_engine_v7.cpp
      auto call_collateral = collateral;
      call_collateral.amount *= 2;
      call_collateral.amount /= 3;

So, call collateral is when 2/3 (66%) of total collateral.  Which is the same thing as saying 150% (3/2) collateral.

I'm not 100% sure this is the correct line but it would be nice to know exactly where this is controlled.  It looks like it maybe referenced in more than one place.


I think it's important to get this right as ByteMaster and others references the 200% number fairly often.  Here is one:
http://bytemaster.bitshares.org/article/2015/01/13/NuBits-is-a-Ponzi-Scheme/

I received 1:1 DVS:BTS

(unclaimed BTS) via AGS and PTS november snapshot, I have no idea... I can't correlate the amounts in the json file to amounts received.  Anyone know the expected correlation for those?

Update:  after carefully reviewing all the files I found a missing key in my calculations.   All the PTS, BTC, and BTS are accounted for in the import.

There is no "yield" however, BTS does go up in value when delegates who have a < 100% pay rate burn BTS.

I've actually got a wallet walk through I did about 4 months ago.   But with all the changes recently it could use an update.   

I think the 9.684292078249 and the 9.606147934678 have the most significant bits.  So you need to start your equations with those.

round ( 91.69 CNY * 9.684292078249 ) = 887.95 BTSBOTS

round ( 966.01 CNY * 9.606147934678 ) = 18885.78 BTSBOTS

So, you can't start with the two inputs with lesser resolution and arrive at the correct higher resolution number.

What we should do is put that limit at 200% like bytemaster claims it is at. 

I'm not sure he's claiming that, it may just be a misunderstanding in terminology as I am assuming in the above post.  Because as you say the code is currently written to allow 151% backing based on (collateral/bitUSD).  What is so confusing is the same numbers pop up depending on which value your are referring to, 2x , 150% , etc.

I updated my other post to clarify a little further around those terms:

Old Way  2x Collateral     
Collateral   100 BTS   
Collateral %   200%   
Actual Call Price   75 BTS   
Actual Min Collateral    % 133   (or 75% , 1.33*value = collateral, or .75* collateral = value , same thing)
150% of orignal price   75 BTS   
%75 of Collarteral   75 BTS   
Collateral drops to 150% of short requirement a.k.a requires 66% of collateral to cover   67%   (Wrong)
     
New Way 3x Collateral     
Collateral   150 BTS   
Collateral %   300%   
Actual Call Price   100 BTS   
Actual Min Collateral   150%   (or 66% , 1.5*value = collateral, or .66 * collateral = value , same thing)
150% of orignal price   75 BTS   (Wrong)
%75 of Collarteral   75 BTS   (Wrong)
Collateral drops to 150% of short requirement a.k.a requires 66% of collateral to cover   100 BTS 

See this discussion:

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=12442.0

It was changed from 2x -> 3x backed.

So, I took all these terms around the % of this and that and applied them to both the old and new ways of 2x and then 3x collateral.  Some of the confusion is that 150% number pops up in two different language ways to describe the call price.  So, i was getting those two confused thinking the 150% couldn't be correct for both 2x and 3x collateral. So, typed it all out as follows.


Example:
Price/Feed = 50 BTS = 1bitUSD
Short 1 bitUSD

Old Way  2x Collateral      
Collateral   100 BTS   
Collateral %   200%   
Actual Call Price   75 BTS   
Actual Min Collateral    % 133   (or 75% , 1.33*value = collateral, or .75* collateral = value , same thing)
150% of orignal price   75 BTS   
%75 of Collarteral   75 BTS   
Collateral drops to 150% of short requirement a.k.a requires 66% of collateral to cover   67%   (Wrong)
      
New Way 3x Collateral      
Collateral   150 BTS   
Collateral %   300%   
Actual Call Price   100 BTS   
Actual Min Collateral   150%   (or 66% , 1.5*value = collateral, or .66 * collateral = value , same thing)
150% of orignal price   75 BTS   (Wrong)
%75 of Collarteral   75 BTS   (Wrong)
Collateral drops to 150% of short requirement a.k.a requires 66% of collateral to cover   100 BTS   

As a summary, the collateral amount went from 2x -> 3x and the forced cover happens sooner going from 75% -> 66% of total collateral is now the threshold for a forced cover.

Also, the most recent bitshares client in the help section has an incorrect example about the margin call price.  It's an example that is using the old 2x collateral method.


This example needs to be updated.