My point was, manipulating the market due to one actor not being able to get their pricing straight is strange to me. I get why it is done and wish Transwiser wasn't being bled to death for Bitshares sake, but the point is... this thread kinda backs up his question.
I agree, and this is what I don't understand:
1) Force settlement was working perfectly as intended and has been described for 6+ months
2) Force settlement is pretty much the same situation as in 0.9.* (every position older than 30 days could be settled at feed and in priority of collateralization).
3) Inaccurate price feeds combined with a misunderstanding of the system lead to a mistake in a business model that cost a business money.
The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.
Why is forced settling essential? Since the blockchain cannot exchange 1 bitCNY for 1 real CNY in your bank account, it must give incentives to control supply such that 1 bitCNY is approximately equal to 1 real CNY. Forced settlement accomplishes that when there is an oversupply (profiting the forced settler), and short selling a premium accomplishes that when in undersupply (profitting the short seller, although I think there should be something else more explicitly helping the short seller). This is essential to understand by everyone involved in trading. You can make the argument to increase the fee to settle or to increase the difference between settlement price and feed (both are settings that can be adjusted by the committee), and I agree that those could be good solutions.
I want Transwiser to succeed, but the response of stopping all asset settlement seems to be the equivalent of "cutting off your nose to spite your face."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cutting_off_the_nose_to_spite_the_face