61
Meta / Re: Banning!!!
« on: June 19, 2019, 07:58:37 am »
Perhaps think about why you were previously banned, and then don't do that?
Most bans are because of SPAM postings.
Most bans are because of SPAM postings.
Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
63
Technical Support / Re: gdex usdt gateway Gateway has been in transfer for 12 days
« on: June 10, 2019, 02:52:58 pm »
Please use GDEX official support. The community can't help you.
64
General Discussion / Re: Price Feed Review
« on: June 07, 2019, 08:34:28 am »bitUSD:USD=1:1?
This. bitUSD is pegged to USD not USDT.
65
General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: May 31, 2019, 07:24:43 am »It always comes down to this...everything gets personal.
I'm sorry if my tone was offensive. It wasn't meant to be.
What I'm trying to say is - it's easy to say "we need this" but it's damn hard to get the details right. I don't see how this idea could be made to work, and despite the fact that it has been brought up repeatedly over the past two years or so, *nobody* has come up with a detailed description of *how exactly* it could be done.
That's why I say "Write a BSIP". *Someone* has to come up and describe the mechanics of a bitasset that is backed by multiple tokes at once. You don't need a deep understanding of MCR and MSSR. Maybe it's even better if you don't know much about these, and come up with your own ideas instead. Write down what you think it means to have an asset backed by two other assets. Describe what different actors in this model can do, like short tokens, trade tokens, settle tokens.
Once you're finished, start attacking your model with questions like mine above - "What if...?". If you model has an answer to all your questions it might be time to show it to the public, and see how it holds against *their* questions. I'm pretty sure if you come up with a working model it will be accepted.
66
General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: May 30, 2019, 07:36:49 am »Open Market or Insurance Fund or Reserve Fund
Settlement is mostly meant to be used when the market does not provide sufficient liquidity, so that's not an answer.
We don't have an Insurance Fund, so you must spec out that too.
We have so far strictly avoided using the reserves for bailing out speculators, and IMO that's a good thing. I hope such a proposal will have little chance to succeed.
Point is this ....needs to get started or once again an opportunity will be blown..
Then go ahead and write a specification. Answering a few select questions on a simple example is not one.
67
General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: May 29, 2019, 08:44:21 am »Given the current crypto bull market sentiment...wouldn't it make sense to for a BSIP to be put up for a vote to accomplish this..?...
Of course it would make sense. Problem is... we don't have such a BSIP. People keep requesting this, but so far nobody has come up with an explanation *how exactly* this would work.
What does it *mean* to have an asset backed by different things? Suppose for example that bitUSD was backed by BTS and OPEN.BTC. Can you short bitUSD by putting up either BTS or OPEN.BTC as collateral? Or 50% of each? What does it mean for forced settlement? Can the settler choose if he receives BTS or OPEN.BTC? If he chooses BTS but the least collateralized short is backed by OPEN.BTC, where does the chain find BTS for him? What if OL goes bankrupt, so the OPEN.BTC collateral is worthless but the BTS collateral is not?
A BSIP must answer all these questions, and many more.
68
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 23, 2019, 07:40:39 am »Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.
Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.
If you join the BEOS telegram room you will find a room full of people who support the BEOS team and look forward to them using their voting power to vote in BSIPs for trustless gateways. Claiming that people are only interested in the rainfall is simply not true.
Claiming that every rainfall participant supports the BEOS voting chaos, or whatever other plans the BEOS team might have, is equally untrue.
69
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 22, 2019, 08:00:29 am »Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.
Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.
70
General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 19, 2019, 06:52:17 pm »us upgrading BitShares to a sidechain in the EOS universe
Is that your goal? Why didn't you say so in the rainfall terms?
How about asking people if they actually want that *before* you lure them out of their voting power?
71
General Discussion / Re: Complaint against clockwork witness
« on: May 14, 2019, 02:32:44 pm »
Perhaps we should turn the witch hunt around and publish screenshots of short positions with low collateral ratio.
These guys are the cancer of BTS and must be punished! Vote for 150% MSSR please!
</sarcasm>
These guys are the cancer of BTS and must be punished! Vote for 150% MSSR please!
</sarcasm>
72
General Discussion / Re: Price Feed Review
« on: May 14, 2019, 07:19:23 am »
Thanks.
You're still ignoring the fact that there is a huge volume of poorly collateralized shorts out there, which means while BTS goes down the DEX price is permanently driven towards MSSR because of constant margin calling. Deriving the feed price from that skewed DEX price is what I'm primarily worried about, because it creates a dangerous feedback loop.
Also, I suspect that Chinese investors mostly do not invest in BTS, but they invest in BTC or other cryptos and use bitCNY/BTS merely as a vehicle. (I may be wrong of course.)
If large amounts of CNY enter the system that way, they will accept a worse-than-fair (less BTS per CNY and higher recharge rate) price, whereas when investors want to exit into CNY they will pay more BTS per CNY and accept a higher withdraw rate. Either way, the MagicWallet price will be skewed relative to the feed price. In a healthy market environment these differences would be resolved through arbitrage. Arbitrage is difficult here because of the general difficulty of investing CNY into cryptos. This only means that we must accept bigger differences, because with higher potential profits arbitrage will kick in at some point.
It is still debatable if the MagicWallet price reflects the fair price better than an external CEX. I see your logic there. At the very least though, the effect of margin calls on the DEX price must be taken into account.
You're still ignoring the fact that there is a huge volume of poorly collateralized shorts out there, which means while BTS goes down the DEX price is permanently driven towards MSSR because of constant margin calling. Deriving the feed price from that skewed DEX price is what I'm primarily worried about, because it creates a dangerous feedback loop.
Also, I suspect that Chinese investors mostly do not invest in BTS, but they invest in BTC or other cryptos and use bitCNY/BTS merely as a vehicle. (I may be wrong of course.)
If large amounts of CNY enter the system that way, they will accept a worse-than-fair (less BTS per CNY and higher recharge rate) price, whereas when investors want to exit into CNY they will pay more BTS per CNY and accept a higher withdraw rate. Either way, the MagicWallet price will be skewed relative to the feed price. In a healthy market environment these differences would be resolved through arbitrage. Arbitrage is difficult here because of the general difficulty of investing CNY into cryptos. This only means that we must accept bigger differences, because with higher potential profits arbitrage will kick in at some point.
It is still debatable if the MagicWallet price reflects the fair price better than an external CEX. I see your logic there. At the very least though, the effect of margin calls on the DEX price must be taken into account.
73
General Discussion / Re: Price Feed Review
« on: May 13, 2019, 12:08:14 pm »
Please explain what "Recharge rate" and "withdrawal rate" is.
74
General Discussion / Re: MARGIN CALL
« on: May 01, 2019, 06:39:06 am »Quotewhen a margin trading company is reached, it takes -10-15% and is placed in a fundThis is not MSSR.
No, but this is:
from which they then encourage those who close the margin?
I don't see how an intermediate fund would make a difference (or how exactly this would work in the first place).
75
General Discussion / Re: MARGIN CALL
« on: April 30, 2019, 06:01:01 am »That's the purpose of MSSR. Margin calls pay MSSR% more than the fair price for covering their debt.NO.
Then please explain what the purpose of MSSR is in your opinion.
