0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
but it's a loan from yourself, right? you're lending yourself your own BTS by going simultaneously long and short; however, you're actually locking up more BTS as collateral than you're borrowing, so wouldn't you be holding less BTS for the duration of the loan to yourself than had you done nothing?
Quote from: starspirit on July 12, 2015, 01:57:59 amQuote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 12, 2015, 01:21:03 amQuote from: starspirit on July 12, 2015, 12:58:02 amQuote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 12, 2015, 12:38:56 am@starspirit, i think if you buy your own short you've just covered your position, but you still have collateral posted to the blockchain, so you actually have less BTS available than before you opened the positions. When you close your short you give back the BTS you borrowed from yourself (net interest exchange to yourself and fees to the network), and your collateral is released. Overall, you've lost 2 BTS in fees without any gain. When i short to myself i'm doing that to roll an open short forward another 30 days, that's all.When you self-create and self-cancel the short there are small transaction fees involved. Its what you do in the middle that earns your reward, whether that's the returns on another asset you funded, market-making income, yield income, or other utility.sorry i'm a little on the slow side tonight...so i short bitUSD and buy my own short ...i have an open short and some bitUSD i can go run amok with, but i've traded my collateral BTS for the short and i've traded BTS for the long...i'm sitting on 2x less BTS and have half that BTS-equiv amount of bitUSD to do something with. would i have been better just using my BTS to buy bitUSD? or actually, wouldn't i just have been better off doing nothing and keeping my original BTS to fund whatever else i wanted?If you sold BTS to buy bitUSD, you have given up some of your BTS exposure, and might miss potential gains. If instead you use the BTS as collateral to create a bitUSD (to use for whatever purpose you want), you have not reduced your BTS exposure at all. You've just used your equity to get a loan. So you keep any gains on BTS, as well as have a loan to do with as you please (like investing in more BTS, or in some other investment).If you did nothing and kept the original BTS in your wallet, you couldn't use this to fund anything.but it's a loan from yourself, right? you're lending yourself your own BTS by going simultaneously long and short; however, you're actually locking up more BTS as collateral than you're borrowing, so wouldn't you be holding less BTS for the duration of the loan to yourself than had you done nothing?
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 12, 2015, 01:21:03 amQuote from: starspirit on July 12, 2015, 12:58:02 amQuote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 12, 2015, 12:38:56 am@starspirit, i think if you buy your own short you've just covered your position, but you still have collateral posted to the blockchain, so you actually have less BTS available than before you opened the positions. When you close your short you give back the BTS you borrowed from yourself (net interest exchange to yourself and fees to the network), and your collateral is released. Overall, you've lost 2 BTS in fees without any gain. When i short to myself i'm doing that to roll an open short forward another 30 days, that's all.When you self-create and self-cancel the short there are small transaction fees involved. Its what you do in the middle that earns your reward, whether that's the returns on another asset you funded, market-making income, yield income, or other utility.sorry i'm a little on the slow side tonight...so i short bitUSD and buy my own short ...i have an open short and some bitUSD i can go run amok with, but i've traded my collateral BTS for the short and i've traded BTS for the long...i'm sitting on 2x less BTS and have half that BTS-equiv amount of bitUSD to do something with. would i have been better just using my BTS to buy bitUSD? or actually, wouldn't i just have been better off doing nothing and keeping my original BTS to fund whatever else i wanted?If you sold BTS to buy bitUSD, you have given up some of your BTS exposure, and might miss potential gains. If instead you use the BTS as collateral to create a bitUSD (to use for whatever purpose you want), you have not reduced your BTS exposure at all. You've just used your equity to get a loan. So you keep any gains on BTS, as well as have a loan to do with as you please (like investing in more BTS, or in some other investment).If you did nothing and kept the original BTS in your wallet, you couldn't use this to fund anything.
Quote from: starspirit on July 12, 2015, 12:58:02 amQuote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 12, 2015, 12:38:56 am@starspirit, i think if you buy your own short you've just covered your position, but you still have collateral posted to the blockchain, so you actually have less BTS available than before you opened the positions. When you close your short you give back the BTS you borrowed from yourself (net interest exchange to yourself and fees to the network), and your collateral is released. Overall, you've lost 2 BTS in fees without any gain. When i short to myself i'm doing that to roll an open short forward another 30 days, that's all.When you self-create and self-cancel the short there are small transaction fees involved. Its what you do in the middle that earns your reward, whether that's the returns on another asset you funded, market-making income, yield income, or other utility.sorry i'm a little on the slow side tonight...so i short bitUSD and buy my own short ...i have an open short and some bitUSD i can go run amok with, but i've traded my collateral BTS for the short and i've traded BTS for the long...i'm sitting on 2x less BTS and have half that BTS-equiv amount of bitUSD to do something with. would i have been better just using my BTS to buy bitUSD? or actually, wouldn't i just have been better off doing nothing and keeping my original BTS to fund whatever else i wanted?
Quote from: cylonmaker2053 on July 12, 2015, 12:38:56 am@starspirit, i think if you buy your own short you've just covered your position, but you still have collateral posted to the blockchain, so you actually have less BTS available than before you opened the positions. When you close your short you give back the BTS you borrowed from yourself (net interest exchange to yourself and fees to the network), and your collateral is released. Overall, you've lost 2 BTS in fees without any gain. When i short to myself i'm doing that to roll an open short forward another 30 days, that's all.When you self-create and self-cancel the short there are small transaction fees involved. Its what you do in the middle that earns your reward, whether that's the returns on another asset you funded, market-making income, yield income, or other utility.
@starspirit, i think if you buy your own short you've just covered your position, but you still have collateral posted to the blockchain, so you actually have less BTS available than before you opened the positions. When you close your short you give back the BTS you borrowed from yourself (net interest exchange to yourself and fees to the network), and your collateral is released. Overall, you've lost 2 BTS in fees without any gain. When i short to myself i'm doing that to roll an open short forward another 30 days, that's all.
Quote from: starspirit on June 21, 2015, 12:26:26 amAnd I'm hoping certain other mechanics will also be made more convenient too, like self-cancelling and closing the loan from the collateral.How can the close from collateral part work together with the need for the bitAsset to persist? If you self create a bitAsset, then sell it, then close by collateral, the system leaks bitAssets, doesn't it?
And I'm hoping certain other mechanics will also be made more convenient too, like self-cancelling and closing the loan from the collateral.
How can the close from collateral part work together with the need for the bitAsset to persist? If you self create a bitAsset, then sell it, then close by collateral, the system leaks bitAssets, doesn't it?
Borrow bitAsset from network feesell asset in dex fee
The only real change I see in the OP is that a short-sell now has to potentially pay two (different) fees in contrast to one fee atm .. though this only makes the DAC more proditable (depending on the ACTUAL fees)
{Disclaimer} I did not get toast/Runes big break through idea that interest is bigger than collateral, so...take the above with a grain of salt!!!
Breaking out the shorting operations into discrete transactions is fantastic. The single short/cover operations of old could still be implemented in the client. I like the idea of breaking out what could be a client side feature/batch and what the blockchain should field. The more that can be pushed to client side the less bloat in the blockchain. Reminds me of programing in assembly where you have to do the extra work of building each operation but it is extremely lean and fast.
Great. This makes it easy (and cheaper) to better simulate a short sell order without excessive soft-collateral funds. You can put up nearly all of the BTS (excluding some to pay for fees) into a short position and get a good amount of BitUSD out of it (not too much to have a high enough collateral value to debt value ratio that makes it unlikely to be margin called or force called from redemption). Then you can sell the BitUSD for more BTS which is then moved back into the short position to increase the debt and then take that extra BitUSD and sell it again. If we assume the value of the initial debt is 50% of the value of the initial collateral and the prices don't change much during this process, then the BitUSD amount will halve with each round. In just a few rounds, it becomes negligible to extract and sell any more debt from the short position. Furthermore, adjusting the ratio at a later point only requires transactions dealing with one short position rather than multiple ones (for example, a new short position created with each round in the process described earlier).
What is a bitUSD? Its a transferable token that represents a collateralised USD loan to a set of borrowers.
Quote from: starspirit on June 11, 2015, 05:35:29 amQuote from: arhag on June 11, 2015, 05:00:07 amBy the way starspirit, I don't see how the BitAssets backed by a mix of collateral types would be fungible unless a fixed mix ratio was specified as part of the BitAsset definition that all shorts of that privatized BitAsset had to satisfy. And in that case, I would imagine the only practical way to short new BitAssets with mixed backing collateral into existence would be through a self-short. The logic for margin calls would also get more complicated with mixed collateral. Correct. With self-shorting and self-cancellation, shorts get to control the mix of collateral they want. I've been working on just such a structure. Collateral can then be completely independent of the markets in which the token trades. Also margin calls could be satisfied by applying each collateral token in sequence to covering the debt until it is satisfied, and then returning the residual collateral tokens to the short. This sequence could even be determined by the short. Also, in case it wasn't clear in my answer, no, you don't require a fixed mix ratio. The shorts could change the mix of collateral as they please, as long as they met the minimum coverage conditions.
Quote from: arhag on June 11, 2015, 05:00:07 amBy the way starspirit, I don't see how the BitAssets backed by a mix of collateral types would be fungible unless a fixed mix ratio was specified as part of the BitAsset definition that all shorts of that privatized BitAsset had to satisfy. And in that case, I would imagine the only practical way to short new BitAssets with mixed backing collateral into existence would be through a self-short. The logic for margin calls would also get more complicated with mixed collateral. Correct. With self-shorting and self-cancellation, shorts get to control the mix of collateral they want. I've been working on just such a structure. Collateral can then be completely independent of the markets in which the token trades. Also margin calls could be satisfied by applying each collateral token in sequence to covering the debt until it is satisfied, and then returning the residual collateral tokens to the short. This sequence could even be determined by the short.
By the way starspirit, I don't see how the BitAssets backed by a mix of collateral types would be fungible unless a fixed mix ratio was specified as part of the BitAsset definition that all shorts of that privatized BitAsset had to satisfy. And in that case, I would imagine the only practical way to short new BitAssets with mixed backing collateral into existence would be through a self-short. The logic for margin calls would also get more complicated with mixed collateral.
Margin calls due to insufficient collateral will execute up to the "call limit" which is a second price provided in the feed. This allows each BitAsset (Smartcoin) to define how much the book may be walked when executing a margin call.
this summer
Under BitAssets 2.0 all that matters is that you maintain sufficient collateral. Initial collateral is effectively meaningless. Users could at any time short to themselves and then manually reduce their collateral. In the interest of simplifying the protocol and the user experience I propose the following:1. Get rid of "short orders" entirely2. Allow users to borrow any amount of BitUSD by locking up collateral.3. Margin call the positions like always4. Users can adjust their debt and collateral at any time provided the ratio between the two is sufficient. To "short" you would first borrow the BitUSD and then place a standard limit order. This would greatly simplify all market operations and history and result in fewer potential bugs. I wanted to run the concept by everyone before committing to the approach.
Doesn't this mean there is infinite bitUSD liquidity available at the feed price?
Quote from: Bitcoinfan on June 16, 2015, 03:26:58 pmQuote from: bytemaster on June 16, 2015, 03:12:17 pm1. Get rid of "short orders" entirely2. Allow users to borrow any amount of BitUSD by locking up collateral.3. Margin call the positions like always4. Users can adjust their debt and collateral at any time provided the ratio between the two is sufficient. To "short" you would first borrow the BitUSD and then place a standard limit order. This would greatly simplify all market operations and history and result in fewer potential bugs. I wanted to run the concept by everyone before committing to the approach.1. How would then longs be collateralized? Who's providing the upside gains if shorts are no longer doing that? How will Smartcoins come into existence then?3. Why reintroduce margin positions again? Will this margin call be separate from a forced settlement, so they are only applied to shorts and not to long positions? When you borrow you put up the collateral and the end result is that you are "short" and "long" at the same time. Then you place a limit order and sell on the market.The peg works like always. Margin calls are unchanged.
Quote from: bytemaster on June 16, 2015, 03:12:17 pm1. Get rid of "short orders" entirely2. Allow users to borrow any amount of BitUSD by locking up collateral.3. Margin call the positions like always4. Users can adjust their debt and collateral at any time provided the ratio between the two is sufficient. To "short" you would first borrow the BitUSD and then place a standard limit order. This would greatly simplify all market operations and history and result in fewer potential bugs. I wanted to run the concept by everyone before committing to the approach.1. How would then longs be collateralized? Who's providing the upside gains if shorts are no longer doing that? How will Smartcoins come into existence then?3. Why reintroduce margin positions again? Will this margin call be separate from a forced settlement, so they are only applied to shorts and not to long positions?
1. Get rid of "short orders" entirely2. Allow users to borrow any amount of BitUSD by locking up collateral.3. Margin call the positions like always4. Users can adjust their debt and collateral at any time provided the ratio between the two is sufficient. To "short" you would first borrow the BitUSD and then place a standard limit order. This would greatly simplify all market operations and history and result in fewer potential bugs. I wanted to run the concept by everyone before committing to the approach.
What if shorting were a single button "short x of BTS" that automatically shorted at feed price to yourself?
4. Users can adjust their debt and collateral at any time provided the ratio between the two is sufficient. To "short" you would first borrow the BitUSD and then place a standard limit order.
3. Margin call the positions like always
1. How would then longs be collateralized?
Who's providing the upside gains if shorts are no longer doing that?
How will Smartcoins come into existence then?
You own the network, but who pays for development?