1771
中文 (Chinese) / Re: transwiser发行私人智能货币的计划
« on: December 03, 2015, 04:15:47 pm »我还以为详细计划已经出来了。
这个思路是不错,不过bitcny已经有了一定的群众基础,你再搞一个TCNY,受众面可能会比较窄,要重新打广告,和bitcny抢饭碗,不知道这对bts持有者来说是利大还是弊大。
和bitcny抢饭碗很简单。
不管是谁发的币,只要更好用,生态做得更大,那就对BTS利大于弊。
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.
我还以为详细计划已经出来了。
这个思路是不错,不过bitcny已经有了一定的群众基础,你再搞一个TCNY,受众面可能会比较窄,要重新打广告,和bitcny抢饭碗,不知道这对bts持有者来说是利大还是弊大。
I ask witness to change SQP from 1500 to 1100,
all people object at the first, then several witness agree with me, but they all change back to 1500 only because of BM said 1500 is right
finally when we change it back to 1100, many user have lost their money
I ask community pause force settlement to avoid a possible unfair robbing
almost all people object me, they say I do it for Chinese commilitee, they focus on who's fault but not the problem itself,
they said this is not a problem because it's always there from the beginning.
we are lucky the committee have agree this proposal, although many seems not happy for this
people think I'm overthought, but do I? trader is not kids's game, do you really want do a serial business based this toy system?
I ask correct the settlement's volume limit from 20% to 2%
many people unsatisified me again, and other people nobody can make sure if I am right, they just want to wait BM's advice.
no any Judgement again.
I ask committee correct it before reenable settlement,
but they said they must keep their promise to reenable force settlement, even don't care about if this is a security problem.
because user's security is not their responsibility to consider
after all these, I got disapoint only
I will continue my noise, just vote me out if I am not satisfied you.
I missed that post from bytemaster. And cryptofresh doesn't seem to indicate who created the proposal. It would have been nice for committee members to be explicit about this as their rationale for quickly voting the 20%-->2% change, otherwise it looks to stakeholders like you're not being deliberate enough, especially after the previous controversial proposal that was voted through. Anyway, it looks like things are falling into place. Thanks.
I'd like to explain once again that the price feed is actual "not wrong" given the set of exchanges it pulls its data from.
Issue 1): There is no such thing as a single true price if you have an asset traded on more than one exchange
Issue 2): Given a set of several exchange, you can derive either a mean, median, or weighted-by-volume price
Issue 3): If you weight your prices by volume, you need to be careful about exchanges that allow trading without fees
This is why the "old" price feed script does not take exchanges into account that allow free trading. The "new" price feed script allows to
pick different exchanges for different smartcoins (e.g. CNY) and adds those fee-free exchanges as sources.
Hence, once the scripts is proofed stable, witnesses can customize the sources for each asset and have USD be rather "stable" using
weighted-median while CNY can be derived as median over fee-free exchanges, or as weighted via non-free and free exchanges
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329
we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .
claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?
not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.
the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329
we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .
claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?
not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.
the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:
- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)
but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
it's my fault not to pay enough attention to the force settlement feature in 2.0, you have the opportunity because transwiser kept on selling BitCNY at 1 CNY to the market in past.
the force settlement feature bring additional risks to the shorter, the result is that BitCNY will worth more than 1 CNY, with a variable premium.
merchant/customers need a cryptocurrency that has fixed value, they just need a simple value transfer media, nothing more, to calculate/check/split the premium need to pay more time/energy/management cost, a BitCNY with variable premium added to 1 CNY is not what the really need.
BitCNY has been a good payment media for merchant/customers, there have been merchant(BTC38), customers(btc38 users), acceptance dealer(transwiser), now the introduction of the force settle make all the above have no space to stay and only speculators will enjoy.
market need speculators, but if there are only speculators in the market, speculators will find no chance to make profit.
I agree with you and I'm glad to see that it worked well as a payment media for merchants/customers in China. I don't think it's much different here. That's precisely how I envision bitCash to work.
after 2 years of experimenting I think the best was the first and original rule..depending on demand for bitassets the bitusd could be at a discount or a premium..period..no expiration no SQP and shinny formulas..nothing..traders would short when bitasset was at premium and people would buy bitasset when in discount forcing the peg
Merchants accepting bitusd as a form of payment would know that at some point their bitasset would worth more or less but at least there would be liquidity from traders and the risk for not beeing able to convert all their bitasset in fiat would be minimal..Now after 2 years we have no liquidity, no traders in the DEX nothing..anyway..
I agree about SQP. Margin calls should only happen when they absolutely must (since it is destroying BTS when in undersupply), and therefore should be tied to whatever is the most liquid/accurate market values. SQP of 1 (fixed to price feed) makes most sense until internal markets are liquid enough.
"traders would short when bitasset was at premium and people would buy bitasset when in discount forcing the peg"
That did not work. The very first bitshares (version 0.1 or something like that) tried this with no price feed or incentives to maintain peg, and price ran away very quickly. Why should I pay for something with no intrinsic value just because it has the label "USD" on it? I'll sell you 1000 maqifrsnwaUSD for 1000.
forced settlement is both the "gold standard" and the "federal reserve." It is the "gold standard" since you can always redeem your smartcoin for the equivalent value in something else. It is the "federal reserve" since it incentivizes the destruction of smartcoins when supply exceeds demand such that value is maintained. What (fiat) currency in the world exists without either a "gold standard" or a "federal reserve?"
Confession of a force-settler (before the GUI made it easy):
I will confess that I was a forced-settler before the GUI came out. I was a force-settler because I spent the time to learn the system inside and out in order to test some bots for both smartcoins and UIA (I believe UIA with properly regulated KYC is the growth market for BTS). My bots know nothing about the underlying assets, they only know the market rules: Sell high, buy low, never sell an asset for less than it can be settled for, if you can buy an asset for less than it can be settled then buy the assets and settle. This behavior is rational, generates profit, and keeps BitShares working efficiently - so it is a win-win for everyone. I feel it is a "service" to the community. I probably settled 1-2k CNY since it started. No other market presented settlement opportunities. I did not know why CNY presented this opportunity; I guessed there was a larger supply of "whales" trying to gain leverage any way they can in risky ways.
When I first heard of Transwiser, I was shocked at the business model (since it seemed like it would always lose money since 1 bitCNY> 1CNY) but also extremely impressed that they figured out to "beat the system" where I could not. The service was great for BTS and I was looking forward to them expanding to other currencies.
When I heard about the price feed data inaccuracy, at first I felt bad but then realized that the error was in some thinking smartcoins were something they were not. See: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20375.0/topicseen.html Even if the feed was incorrect, all businesses must know that the feed is all that matters and build their business model off of that (or work to correct the feed).
Now that we're almost through this "crisis," I think we're all stronger. Feeds are more accurate, people know what smartcoins are, and businesses know to research the system completely before building on top of it.
Bottom line, the market can price all of the risks which are highest during low liquidity, and get lower as liquidity improves. Someone who steps up to provide liquidity can "trust" in that liquidity and offer a competitive price over those who must trust someone else to provide liquidity. Bottom line, someone should buy up a lot of BitCNY at a price above 1.0 and then turn around and provide liquidity in the range of 1.05 to 1.06. The liquidity provider will make all of the money from back and forth trades and the shorts wouldn't really have to worry about getting force settled once there was ample liquidity.
@clayop
It's no secret I was buying bitCNY for less than the feed and settling it because I am a rational market participant.
I still have a big sub feed price buy wall up and will continue to profit from it again when instant settlement returns. :-)
I'm not exploiting bitshares I'm exploiting transwiser.
....as most of the BitCNY users agree.I am curious .. how did you evaluate this?
To set the record straight, a topic on permanently disabling force settlement for BitCNY or not, was NOT and is NOT on the Comittee's table.
Back to the discussion of whether to permanently disable force settlement for bitCNY or not:
In my personal opinion, a close discussion/consultation should be made between Transwiser and BM and team first before gathering feedback from the community. This will help to focus on the main points and make a common decision easier.