in 0 offset setting, the holder is ok but the shorter is always hurt. why should the holder have power to force the shorter to sell BTS to him without any compensation? the 0 offset setting discourage shorting, means it discourage bitasset supply.
We've had that discussion before. Settlement doesn't hurt anybody because it happens at face value. Compensation is not necessary.
Changing the rules in the proposed way *does* hurt holders, by devaluating their holdings by 1% in favour of shorters.
You haven't answered my question about your motivation for this proposal.
I have told the motivation clearly - to encourage more bitasset supply to fulfill trade demands.
I haven't saw your discussion, but the 0 offset setting really hurt the shorter, maybe only a robber will think he definitely have the power to force a shorter to sell the collateral just at the settlement price.
this is not changing rules in mid-game, the design of BTS2.0 set the committee mechanism for parameter change, now and then there are necessity to review some parameters and make necessary change, a reasonable change with good notice work will benefit the whole economy.
This change is not "necessary". If you think it is, prove it. All I've seen here are assumptions and wild speculations.
You haven't answered my question about TCNY/TUSD either, despite the fact that you're the issuer and should know the answer.
the 0 offset hurt the shorters and discourage the bitassets supply - that is why it need to be changed, I cannot convince you if you do not want to understand.
TUSD is just defined but not actually put into use, so now let me compare the behavior of bitCNY and TCNY.
in China now transwiser is the only gateway that handle the deposit/withdraw of bitCNY and TCNY. btareserve is the main userid of transwiser, you can check the current data of bitCNY and TCNY at
http://cryptofresh.com/a/CNY and
http://cryptofresh.com/a/TCNY , one obvious fact is that for bitCNY, transwiser always need to short to supply bitCNY to users and now has a big debt, because users always prefer to buy bitCNY from transwiser than short by himself, as they are afraid to be force settled. for TCNY, transwiser now have net balance without any debt, as users would like to short by themselves.
sometimes as gateway, transwiser has to issue force settlement of TCNY with paying 1% offset for liquidity, anyway this is better than the status that transwiser always has to short. if bitCNY be set 1% offset, I believe shorters will provide more bitCNY however holders do not always need to issue force settlement, as bitCNY is more wildly used and can be used in several trade pairs.
the voice from the main market area should be a main reference on whether and how to modify a smartcoin's parameters, now in China community most of the members support this change.
@xeroc afaik, MAKER use variable settlement offset in the design, the higher the collateral ratio, the higher the settlement offset, this is reasonable, and this means it is not fee charged by network, but a compensation from settler to shorter. surely BTS can also consider similar variable settlement offset, but I still strongly propose to do a simple parameter change first for bitCNY, as to implement a variable settlement offset may cost much long time.