Where did I say the money was guaranteed.
It was implied when you offered me to take on a force settlement trade at a loss.
Sometimes I feel like I'm the only one with trading experience around here.
Now are you implying I don't have trading experience?
Its about a $243 order, not $75.
Yes that was my mistake.... I just picked out the wrong order in the order book...
Here is my logic. I believe bts is at or near an all-time low.
It's still a speculation. Mastercoin is around $1m market cap and Counterparty is around $2m. (I'm optimistic, but it's still speculative)
The absolute most I can lose is 0.25 gold (~$262 or 80,000 bts at current prices). I am highly collateralized and my call price is 1,204,868 bts/gold. My asking price of 400,000 is ~ 15% above settlement. You would pay about 400,000 bts (~$1280) in a round trip trade for 1 ounce of physical gold, which is also comparable in security or at least potential security of bitshares. This goes along with my theory that smartcoins will be more popular for physical commodities than fiat. In other words, if you believe security of the bitshares system to be comparable to the security of owning physical gold directly, then generally any price below a 15% premium in bitgold is a better deal than physical gold.
Yes this is mostly a test case, but I will gladly accept the peanuts if I make them. This trade seems like a no-brainer to me. I will keep you posted.
What do you feel about trading in an illiquid market and do you have concerns about that? Is your order for .23 or .25 gold? I see the .23 gold order at 400k.
So you are comparing the cost of physical gold to bitShares as a store of value? Interesting way to look at it. I always thought there would be a consistent float of bitUSD & bitGold for payments and as a store of value, but if it was just strictly for a store of value, the value of the BTS DAC would not generate transaction fee revenue so you are valuing it more like Bitcoin and the value that the ecosystem has in securing itself. However without payment transaction fees that validate the value of a company or DAC, where would the DAC derive it's value? Bitcoin has the same issue because if people don't use it for payments, how can it be used as a store of value? I have an answer to this and there are a few potential answers, but curious to know what others think.
Also a hypothetical question re: SQP. I was curious what your thoughts were about the SQP. If there were no SQP in the initial design of 50% (now around 10%) even if you had executed your order with plenty of collateral I assume if someone had walked the book down to zero by buying all the bids, you and the rest of the 6.3 oz shorts would be forced out. Is that your understanding or am I missing something? (I understand there will be fork to make use of the feed price as protection and I'm not sure what will be of the SQP, but this is just a hypothetical question about how the system worked before and the dangers of illiquidity)
You'd be adding another force settlement feature just like Alt suggested and that will balance the market more, but like I said in the other thread that will introduce unpredictability to long term bitAsset holders in addition to shorts so you'll have less liquidity on both sides. You'll probably have a real powerful manipulation tool as well. The ideal scenario is that you have long term bitAsset holders and long term bitAsset shorters that don't have to be forced out of their positions unless undercollateralized.
I'm not sure what other forced settlement feature you are talking about other than the current forced settlement feature.
I misread your comment. I thought you said shorts should be able to settle above the feed instead of just place relative orders above the feed.