Hey guys can we experiment by making the SQP = 1000 and just keep it there. I think it will create liquidity and create a better peg... everyone implicitly expects trade to happen at the price feed anyways.
sounds legit ..that will be a big help
shall I implement a flexible asset-specific SQP parameter in the price feed script?
I like the idea of lowering the SQP which tends to help the shorters, and which in turn provides liquidity. I like to hear the pros and cons from the players (long and short) and other stakeholders.1000 all the way... I can argue for 990, but not in form today to explain it best.
@bytemaster @bitcrab @tonyk @Xeldal @maqifrnswa @mindphlux your input are appreciated.
Please share your views.
1. Prevent margin call from being triggered unless the price feed is less than call price (popular demand)https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20214.0.html
SQP to 1000 i think doesn't work. Forced margin call may never trigger. It would require buying at or beyond the feed/settlement.
I'm not sure I understand what the hoped for result is of moving from 1100 to 1030. In a market that doesn't want them at a 10% discount, surely doesn't want them at only a 3% discount. The closer SQP gets to 0% the more risk your taking of an ultimately under collateralized position. This was the purpose of SQP being initially set at 1500 or 50%, because surely someone will always trade for a 50% discount to settle out the margin call. (it has issues though as we've discussed)
I would be curious to see what happens though setting to 3%. If traders are truly trading around the SQP limits or if 10% off settlement is just the risk priced market rate .
I just had a thought, ... First, what If SQP was only triggered if feed falls below call limit, but the SQP percentage was base on how far the feed is beyond the call limit. With feed at the call limit, SQP could be 0%. With feed at 10% beyond the call limit, SQP could scale to 10% also. So the further beyond the call limit the feed gets, the more urgent it is to settle the margin call.
another random thought, Could we allow for under collateralized positions have the market continue and either wait/hope the price returns to where it can be collateralized and settled or if it was never going to happen you might authorize a worker to fund whatever was needed to settle the missing collateral. (i havn't thought about this at all just random)
I'm a little tired though, so I hope these made sense , and not too random.
if you have bitUSD, when you know the SQP will change from 1100 to 1090, next to 1080, next to 1070 ....
you'd best sell bitUSD to the force margin call ASAP to get more benifit.
this will help liquility
if the SQP always 1000, or always 1100, maybe you will not hurry, and always wait...
and I don't agree set SQP less than 1000, the shorter should buy back the bitUSD actively, or need pay more.
if set SQP less than 1000, the shorter will prefer don't buy back bitUSD.
if you have bitUSD, when you know the SQP will change from 1100 to 1090, next to 1080, next to 1070 ....
you'd best sell bitUSD to the force margin call ASAP to get more benifit.
this will help liquility
if the SQP always 1000, or always 1100, maybe you will not hurry, and always wait...
and I don't agree set SQP less than 1000, the shorter should buy back the bitUSD actively, or need pay more.
if set SQP less than 1000, the shorter will prefer don't buy back bitUSD.
I don't think we should reduce it past 110 or 10%. I think in reducing it we are reducing the incentive for people to protect the network against a black swan. While I understand this can skew the price of the MPA by 10%, I dont think the problem is the SQP price but the fact that there no one is willing to sell MPA for 10% profit.+1
I don't think we should reduce it past 110 or 10%. I think in reducing it we are reducing the incentive for people to protect the network against a black swan. While I understand this can skew the price of the MPA by 10%, I dont think the problem is the SQP price but the fact that there no one is willing to sell MPA for 10% profit.+1
The SQP affects only margin calls, so as long as the shorters keep their positions sufficiently collateralized there is no problem.
The purpose of the SQP is to protect the MPA from a black swan. Reducing the SQP increases the likelyhood of a black swan, which would cause serious damage to our ecosystem.
Conclusion: don't reduce the SQP!
+5%
I don't think we should reduce it past 110 or 10%. I think in reducing it we are reducing the incentive for people to protect the network against a black swan. While I understand this can skew the price of the MPA by 10%, I dont think the problem is the SQP price but the fact that there no one is willing to sell MPA for 10% profit.+1
The SQP affects only margin calls, so as long as the shorters keep their positions sufficiently collateralized there is no problem.
The purpose of the SQP is to protect the MPA from a black swan. Reducing the SQP increases the likelyhood of a black swan, which would cause serious damage to our ecosystem.
Conclusion: don't reduce the SQP!
I don't think we should reduce it past 110 or 10%. I think in reducing it we are reducing the incentive for people to protect the network against a black swan. While I understand this can skew the price of the MPA by 10%, I dont think the problem is the SQP price but the fact that there no one is willing to sell MPA for 10% profit.+1
The SQP affects only margin calls, so as long as the shorters keep their positions sufficiently collateralized there is no problem.
The purpose of the SQP is to protect the MPA from a black swan. Reducing the SQP increases the likelyhood of a black swan, which would cause serious damage to our ecosystem.
Conclusion: don't reduce the SQP!
@pc @lafona I listened to the mumble recording, but I wish I could have attended live and spoken up. I understand the concern about black swans, but black swans are more likely to occur with less liquidity and without the SQP we may have black swanned already if someone just walked the book enough to trigger it.
1) The SQP was designed to protect shorts, but in actuality it protects manipulators from ramming down market prices and forcing a black swan. On occasion I will call the SQP the BSP (Black Swan Protector) as a meme until someone convinces me otherwise.
2) Isn't the SQP already at 1100 or 10%? Do you think changing it another 10% is really going to make that much of a difference in creating a black swan? Really how much of an unmargin-called overhang will we have? It would be great for someone to calculate it. Anyways with more liquidity I argue we'll have less of an overhang and thinner spreads.
3) The upside of setting SQP to 1000 will get you more liquidity.. more shorters...most likely make the premium disappear... make bitUSD & bitShares relevant.... help it become adopted worldwide. and end world hunger... :P
4) Buyers are bidding at the SQP so whatever it's set at pegs the price. When margin calls happen at the price feed, people will trade around the price feed which is great.
5) Setting the SQP removes the confusion and implicit agreement between shorts and longs about an agreed upon settlement price for the trade. The whole 'settlement price' is confusing. Natural settlement should occur at that price feed, not forced settlement. We should change the SQP and remove forced settlement...
1) The SQP was designed to protect shorts, but in actuality it protects manipulators from ramming down market prices and forcing a black swan. On occasion I will call the SQP the BSP (Black Swan Protector) as a meme until someone convinces me otherwise.
2) Isn't the SQP already at 1100 or 10%? Do you think changing it another 10% is really going to make that much of a difference in creating a black swan? Really how much of an unmargin-called overhang will we have? It would be great for someone to calculate it. Anyways with more liquidity I argue we'll have less of an overhang and thinner spreads.
3) The upside of setting SQP to 1000 will get you more liquidity.. more shorters...most likely make the premium disappear... make bitUSD & bitShares relevant.... help it become adopted worldwide. and end world hunger... :P
4) Buyers are bidding at the SQP so whatever it's set at pegs the price. When margin calls happen at the price feed, people will trade around the price feed which is great.
5) Setting the SQP removes the confusion and implicit agreement between shorts and longs about an agreed upon settlement price for the trade. The whole 'settlement price' is confusing. Natural settlement should occur at that price feed, not forced settlement. We should change the SQP and remove forced settlement...
1) The SQP was designed to protect shorts, but in actuality it protects manipulators from ramming down market prices and forcing a black swan. On occasion I will call the SQP the BSP (Black Swan Protector) as a meme until someone convinces me otherwise.
2) Isn't the SQP already at 1100 or 10%? Do you think changing it another 10% is really going to make that much of a difference in creating a black swan? Really how much of an unmargin-called overhang will we have? It would be great for someone to calculate it. Anyways with more liquidity I argue we'll have less of an overhang and thinner spreads.
3) The upside of setting SQP to 1000 will get you more liquidity.. more shorters...most likely make the premium disappear... make bitUSD & bitShares relevant.... help it become adopted worldwide. and end world hunger... :P
4) Buyers are bidding at the SQP so whatever it's set at pegs the price. When margin calls happen at the price feed, people will trade around the price feed which is great.
5) Setting the SQP removes the confusion and implicit agreement between shorts and longs about an agreed upon settlement price for the trade. The whole 'settlement price' is confusing. Natural settlement should occur at that price feed, not forced settlement. We should change the SQP and remove forced settlement...
What you're missing is that the SQP is only relevant for shorts with insufficient collateral. These shorts are dangerous and therefore must be removed from the books as quickly as possible. The shorters can escape the effects of the SQP simply by adding more collateral. If they don't - well, you can call it punishment if you like.
1) The SQP was designed to protect shorts, but in actuality it protects manipulators from ramming down market prices and forcing a black swan. On occasion I will call the SQP the BSP (Black Swan Protector) as a meme until someone convinces me otherwise.
2) Isn't the SQP already at 1100 or 10%? Do you think changing it another 10% is really going to make that much of a difference in creating a black swan? Really how much of an unmargin-called overhang will we have? It would be great for someone to calculate it. Anyways with more liquidity I argue we'll have less of an overhang and thinner spreads.
3) The upside of setting SQP to 1000 will get you more liquidity.. more shorters...most likely make the premium disappear... make bitUSD & bitShares relevant.... help it become adopted worldwide. and end world hunger... :P
4) Buyers are bidding at the SQP so whatever it's set at pegs the price. When margin calls happen at the price feed, people will trade around the price feed which is great.
5) Setting the SQP removes the confusion and implicit agreement between shorts and longs about an agreed upon settlement price for the trade. The whole 'settlement price' is confusing. Natural settlement should occur at that price feed, not forced settlement. We should change the SQP and remove forced settlement...
What you're missing is that the SQP is only relevant for shorts with insufficient collateral. These shorts are dangerous and therefore must be removed from the books as quickly as possible. The shorters can escape the effects of the SQP simply by adding more collateral. If they don't - well, you can call it punishment if you like.
Lets stop theorizing about how pegged currencies should be conceived. Nubits is an example that works in practice. Theres no SQP, and theres no forced settlement. These features merely over-complicate the market and discourage the very people we need to make bitassets work.
Bitshares is useless if bitassets don't work. Its really that simple.
I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
And you didn't answer why a 10% reduction would be that big a deal for margin overhang. Compare that to the upside where you're going to get much more liquidity in the market, create thinner spreads, and further lessen the chances of black swans.
Lastly you seem to be in favor of forced settlement.
I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.
I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.
Why all markets? Am I missing something? Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not? I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works. The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?
[In the equation: SWAN = DEBT/COLLATERAL
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.0.html
Both DEBT & COLLATERAL are based on internal market prices correct?]
I checked the market depth on the openledger books and a 430,000 BTS sell order ($1290) gets the market down from .003 USD/BTS to .002 USD/BTS.. if my math is right it only takes $1,290 to bring the internal markets down 33%? And there is no support after that so it will go to zero USD/BTS if no one else comes in the very second a big sell order is placed.
I'm actually hoping I'm missing something, because I'm doing this analysis on the fly and the more I find out the more problems I see with this illiquidity....
I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.
Why all markets? Am I missing something? Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not? I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works. The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?
[In the equation: SWAN = DEBT/COLLATERAL
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.0.html
Both DEBT & COLLATERAL are based on internal market prices correct?]
I checked the market depth on the openledger books and a 430,000 BTS sell order ($1290) gets the market down from .003 USD/BTS to .002 USD/BTS.. if my math is right it only takes $1,290 to bring the internal markets down 33%? And there is no support after that so it will go to zero USD/BTS if no one else comes in the very second a big sell order is placed.
I'm actually hoping I'm missing something, because I'm doing this analysis on the fly and the more I find out the more problems I see with this illiquidity....
IDK, shouldn't you have found this first before having strong opinions in the other thread? ...to say nothing about this one.
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.
Why all markets? Am I missing something? Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not? I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works. The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?
[In the equation: SWAN = DEBT/COLLATERAL
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.0.html
Both DEBT & COLLATERAL are based on internal market prices correct?]
I checked the market depth on the openledger books and a 430,000 BTS sell order ($1290) gets the market down from .003 USD/BTS to .002 USD/BTS.. if my math is right it only takes $1,290 to bring the internal markets down 33%? And there is no support after that so it will go to zero USD/BTS if no one else comes in the very second a big sell order is placed.
I'm actually hoping I'm missing something, because I'm doing this analysis on the fly and the more I find out the more problems I see with this illiquidity....
IDK, shouldn't you have found this first before having strong opinions in the other thread? ...to say nothing about this one.
I have an opinion and I'm asking mainly rhetorically, but I hold out that I could be wrong and if so sometimes it's easier for someone to point it out.
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.
Why all markets? Am I missing something? Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not? I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works. The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?
[In the equation: SWAN = DEBT/COLLATERAL
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.0.html
Both DEBT & COLLATERAL are based on internal market prices correct?]
I checked the market depth on the openledger books and a 430,000 BTS sell order ($1290) gets the market down from .003 USD/BTS to .002 USD/BTS.. if my math is right it only takes $1,290 to bring the internal markets down 33%? And there is no support after that so it will go to zero USD/BTS if no one else comes in the very second a big sell order is placed.
I'm actually hoping I'm missing something, because I'm doing this analysis on the fly and the more I find out the more problems I see with this illiquidity....
IDK, shouldn't you have found this first before having strong opinions in the other thread? ...to say nothing about this one.
I have an opinion and I'm asking mainly rhetorically, but I hold out that I could be wrong and if so sometimes it's easier for someone to point it out.
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin. He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.
settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin. He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.
I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]
Zero!
PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?
That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.
Why all markets? Am I missing something? Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not? I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works. The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?
No this not a math problem, it is a simple question - How much were the exact losses of transwise before they lied to the committee members, claiming huge losses so they can change the system to their liking?settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin. He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.
I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]
Zero!
PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?
may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to face.
you still think it as a math problem. the problem is you never can give a fair price for Bts, and change others Bts with this price.
you can give a price at a moment, but the price always change, so nobody can accept the rule: you can buy all of my Bts at any time you want
settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?
I don't know if you are really stupid or pretend to be stupid.No this not a math problem, it is a simple question - How much were the exact losses of transwise before they lied to the committee members, claiming huge losses so they can change the system to their liking?settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin. He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.
I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]
Zero!
PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?
may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to face.
He asked a valid question .. getting personal is not helpfulI don't know if you are really stupid or pretend to be stupid.No this not a math problem, it is a simple question - How much were the exact losses of transwise before they lied to the committee members, claiming huge losses so they can change the system to their liking?settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?Quoteyes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.
Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP? I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS. Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin. He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.
I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]
Zero!
PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?
may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to face.
He asked a valid question .. getting personal is not helpfulPlease don't dig a tomb (don't reply to a too old post) :P
Benefit: Margin calls should be avoided unless absolutely necessary since it takes smartcoins out of circulation when the market is too thin to begin with. The most accurate/liquid market should be used to establish when a market call occurs, and at this moment the feed is a best. Feed is 100% SQP.
Benefit: Margin calls should be avoided unless absolutely necessary since it takes smartcoins out of circulation when the market is too thin to begin with. The most accurate/liquid market should be used to establish when a market call occurs, and at this moment the feed is a best. Feed is 100% SQP.
If you want to avoid margin calls, why not just reduce the margin call limit? Instead of triggering at 175% collateralization, trigger at 150% or lower.
Its my understanding that SQP is on its way out, so perhaps we shouldn't be designing around it. But in any event I think this SQP limit should not be reduced to 1000. If smartcoins are designed to trade at a premium, selling the smartcoin at the feed is the worst deal you should ever expect to get. Margin call orders, as they approach <100% collateralization are the most urgently needed to fill. You don't put the most urgent need at the least desirable price. It may never get filled.
I'd suggested elsewhere having margin call only trigger if the feed crosses your limit. Like BTS-0.9 Only then would it reach out and try to fill the order, but it's restricted by a limit, again like BTS-0.9 ; As the feed moves beyond your margin call limit, the urgency to fill the order is greater. The limit could start at 0% of the feed once triggered, and slowly extend out, up to 10% or more as it approaches black swan <100% collateralization.
I didn't know SQP was going to be removed; but I did know that margin calls will only be triggered if the feed crosses your margin call limit:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/436
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/compare/436-fork-feed-protect