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.

Shutdown CNY market would have been a worst decision.

Some people are blaiming the temporary suspension of the force settle function just because they can not use it on the CNY market to gain free money at the expenses of the shorters.
Shutting down the CNY market would have had the same results for those people pov...no free money anymore. They would still blaiming the decision.

Plus:
The real "active" markets are mostly btc/bts, usd/bts, cny/bts.

Since both btc/bts and usd/bts have buy orders above the feed, using the force settlement has no sense at all, since you could sell at better price than feed price.
That means that the temporary disable of the force settlement only affect cny market.

BUT, shutting down cny market, not only would prevented the use of the function, but would also completely stopped any trade at all.
No one could have sold or bought cny anymore, and no one could have started to put some buy orders above the feed as now.

So ultimately shutdown the cny market was not a better decision at all.


Transwiser is not the only shorter in cny market. So it is not a better idea.

Pay for a professional price feed provider - I don't think it make any sense at all. There is no "professional price feed" and there is not "right" price feed.
There is "accurate" price feed *considering* external exchanges. So again, it is not a viable solution.

I am not going to reply on the "agenda" and "greed" part. Really. It insult me a bit. I have no gain on temporary disabling the function.


You guys should try to understand that we took that decision only because we think it was really the right thing to do to for the good of the community as a whole.

You are not exploiting transwiser, you are exploiting a flaw in the feed at the expenses of shorters, included transwiser.

@JonnyBitcoin
The really bad thing here is that You don't even try to listen and understand what we are saing.
You can continue in believe what you said replying to clayop, but it is just false.

-The price feed for CNY is lower than what it should be because the current script does not include some big chinese exchanges

-The committee has not changed any fundamental design of the system. The committee has temporary disabled a function that was used to exploit a situation in CNY market, caused by the inaccurate feed.
(function that probably more than 99.9% of the community never used before the gui introduction, yourself included I bet, so don't scream to the scandal if is not available for 1 week after months of being out of normal use)

-We need people that instead of insult and complain all the time, step up and put theirself on the table. Make a committee account and propose theirself for help the whole community and the current committee.

The solution should have been to fix the price feeds, better document the system, and correct the business model, not turn off a working and essential feature.

We decided to temporarily disable the settlement feature just to give time to xeroc to "fix" the script.
The script needed a partial refactoring, and obviously xeroc needed time for this.

Are traders going to make the same amount of money they would have made if force settlement wasn't temporarily disabled?

I thought the pause helped stop Transwiser & others losing money to those traders.

Sorry I am not sure to understand what you exactly mean.

If you are referring to the "lose money" due to the currently not available "force settlement" function:
-Nobody is forcing them to sell their BitCNY at lower value instead of wait for the "force settlement" to be back.

If you are referring to the "lose money" due to the currently not available exploitation of the BitCNY market:
-Well, that is NOT "lose money", that is "not gain money exploiting some flaw in the sistem at the expense of the shorters".

for any small change there will always be big complain, need not to care that much, and I doubt whether it's a good idea to make many rules for how to create and implement proposals, because the proposals are different and the context that need them are also different.

Yes, for any small change there will always be somebody complaining, that doesn't mean we should not care that much tho.

We should not think that the decision we reached is the ultimate true and right decision. We should always be open to consider and analyze new point of view that may change our vision too.

Some rules, or better "guidelines", are definitely needed.
If it is NOT a real emergency we should respect some fixed timing about the time duration of the proposals, their review period and such, no matter the scope or the context of those proposals.
We should act for the community best interest, but we should also make the community FEEL SAFE from our power. We should always give them the possibility to knock us/our proposals down.

Regardless the timing, I think something like this could be a good start:

1-Make a First forum post to introduce the topic, what we think about it, our pro and cons. Discussion needed here.
2-Gather information and community proposals from the post above.
3-Make a Second forum post with a poll (or another kind of poll less subject to manipulation...idk) including our suggestions and community's more relevant suggestion too.
4-Give time to the community to vote and continue to express their thought.
5-Make a committee proposal with the results we gather from 4-
6-Give to the community enough time to 1)vote for the submitted proposal or 2)unvote committee members

Any other better ideas would be great and welcomed

The focus of this post you made, is on IF the disabling of the settlement function is temporary (as the committee said) or permanent (as you claim). Stick to it.

Plus: It's very funny that a guy like you that is pretty much always ironic and sarcastic can not recognize a so obvious ironic provocation

And I really hope it's the same rules for all smartcoins and not some special rules for some but not others.

This is a good point.

However, if any specific-market rule will be requested or proposed or idk, it will be a Community call to decide on it, not a Committee one.