FFS bitcrab, I thought BitShares was supposed to be decentralised.
You adjust all the parameters to suit your whale positions.
you run the open market operations (a major conflict of interest.)
you got the committee to change force settlement on BitCNY to 5%(supposedly temporarily) when all other bitassets are 1%
now you want to change MSSR for your own ends.
lets just rename it Crabshares
@JonnyB, it is a little unfair to claim he is changing anything. If at all, it is the committee that has the power to modify parameters. That includes more than just bitcrab.
In the forums, we should keep a friendly environment to proposals and learn from discussions.
@bitcrab merely proposed a change to get things started with discussions.
Have you been around here when Dan Larimer proposed to have only 7 block producers? Same thing: A controversial proposal
All of these potential changes should be considered for all bit assets. No reason for CYN to be different, this is more confusing for users.
I need to disagree here, bitCNY has much more liquidity than any of the other assets. Disconnecting its parameters from others makes sense IMHO.
With respect to the actual proposal, I think it is worth exeperimenting with the MSSR for bitCNY (only bitCNY!) given the increased volume there (we had over 100M BTS volume there yesterday).
We've known from the beginning that eventually some bitassets will be more prominent than others, and bitCNY certainly went through the charts compared to others. It should be allowed to have
a different set of parameters *AS LONG* as we let all market participants know about those changes before they get implemented.
To the change of MSSR, I believe it makes sense for CNY which has quite some liquidity near the spread. Lowering the MSSR might bring the premium of CNY down in case of BTS price decline.
However, it also reduces the potential profits for those that shortsell into the margin calls (because their profit is less then).
The other concern I have is the use of OMO in bitCNY. I am unclear how much of the liquidity is offered by OMO and how much comes from 3rd party traders. Certainly, yesterday, the 100M volume
has not been caused by OMO. The more I think about OMO the more I believe it should be replaced by a more something that is called "community hedge fund" and allows for actual market making
to act as a regular market participant with profits for the reserves.
I believe, once we have the custom operations BSIP approved and ready on chain, we might actually be able to technically hire someone for trading and pay them for doing so. (different topic)
To conclude the discussion about MSSR, I think we should continue discussion about lowering it. I would like to see its effect on bitCNY.
However, we should learn from the lessons of raising settlement offset of 5% and make clear that we all understand when an expiriment is a success or when it failed.
That said, I would propose the following procedure:
0. let's continue discussion about how much the MSSR should be lowered
1. let's define a metric that allows us to identify if that has had any effect
2. a proposal shall be created for committee to lower it with an expiration of at least 2 weeks!
3. 3 months after the proposal has executed, the MSSR should be re-evaluated in public discussion together with the metrics of 1.
4. 2 other proposal shall be created to the committee to either approve the lower MSSR or to reset it to 10.