I agree with @clockwork.
It seems to be an art to find a balance. Certainly we've learned alot from
BSIP42 even though some people in the community declare it a failure
already.

Maybe we can learn the lessons in such a way that it tells us how to use
a dynamic MCR once we have the backend fixed.

price feeding is so important for Bitshares and it need witnesses to pay more attention and efforts on this.

witnesses need to publish their algorithm to evaluate and check with the real feed price.

the published algorithm need to include

1. how the premium is calculated out.
2. how the feed price is calculated out based on premium and other factors.

I am sorry that I'll use my voting power to push this thing, after 20th, Nov, I may update voting on witnesses if the behavior on this is not satisfactory. 

I agree with this, assuming that satisfactory == transparent.

This finally leads to requiring more transparency from witnesses and their actions. The times where witnesses just needed to setup "some script" and keep their block producers reliable are over. Competition is heating up and witnesses have to be more pro-active.

I used to have a rather lose set of requirements from witnesses - this will change.

I'm assuming the vote above is just informative - I guess the Committee have the authority make the decision and if they decide they want to put it to a worker vote on chain they do?

Correct.

As a community, the easiest way forward would be to appoint *additional* committee members.
No one forces us to stick with the hard-coded minimum of 11, code only prevents us from reaching 1002!

So, community, please apply for committee membership!

Provided that we need to learn along the way, I think we add another experiment to the game and see if settlements can be dis-incentivized by raising the offset. If that results in a better peg, I am not convinced, but I also don't know.
I feel that the bitCNY:BTS market is the only one that can survive such a (to me rather drastic) step given the liquidity.

As a committee member I have one more request: When a proposal is created and approved for increasing the settlement offset, please make it execute with at least 5 days notice and ensure everyone trading on bitCNY has had a chance to adept to the upcoming change. Thank you.

I took some of my spare time to learn vuejs and chose to build something
that the community may consider useful:

   http://bitassets.bitshares.eu/

This shows "some" statistics of bitAssets including some charts.

At this point, I am looking for someone that knows Vuejs and can help me
make this page more "pretty". Anyone?

Pull Requests are welcome:
https://github.com/BitSharesEurope/bitassets.bitshares.eu

I've foreseen the situation when drafting BSIP42, see
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0042.md#uptrend-and-discount
. In short, a static force settlement offset is not quite compatible with
BSIP42 when a bitAsset is oversupplied. BSIP42 aims to let debt position
holders reduce debt at market/fair price, but not at higher price to punish
them. If we agree with BSIP42, we either need to adjust force settlement offset
dynamically, or disable force settlement temporarily.

In fact, I came to the same conclusion. Sorry it took so long.

I think we all agree that BSIP42 leads to force settlement being **overly**
expensive to shorters. I also believe that "disabling" settlement can only
be a termporary solution until dynamic MCR can be used.
Instead of disabling it, why don't we reduce the percentage of supply that can
be settled per maintenance interval to something small? That would discourage
longs from using settlement but would still keep the option open.

I've explained why disabling force settlement is doable in this thread
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27170.0 . I'm not going to explain
again. I'm not going to push anything. It's no fun.

I feel very very disappointed now.

Sorry for that, my fault.

After experimented BSIP42 for 2 months, which has shown obvious effects towards
a tight peg, people still didn't understand the ins and outs, including the
ones who appeared to support BSIP42 (e.g. Fabian @xeroc), not even mentioning
the ones who voted "NO" without even written anything in this forum. All
discussions came to a dead end. No progress. Nothing. Not even a valid
argument. When people just say no but don't tell you why, how you can improve?
We're all 5? It's that hard to discuss rationally? It's that waste of your time
to learn a bit more?

I am sorry to appear reluctant and "slow" when it comes to understanding market
dynamics. As you know, I do not have an economics background. Still, being a
proxy it is a requirement to *understand* what I am doing. Given the amount of
time that I have put into understanding and even defending BSIP42 in the community
makes it odd you are calling me out :-/

OK, some of you asked for a fix for the MCR issue. I've submitted the code (the
fix) to github 2 months before, whoever wants to test it and
push it online can go ahead, or write your own fix.

This is great news, I didn't know that. How can we make sure this
makes it into the next upgrade?

Actually, adjusting MCR is
effectively the same as adjusting price feed + force settlement offset,
so, before the fix is online, we can do something to keep things going,
however, whether to do and what to do also depends on you.

... except that adjusting MCR allows to keep the price feed reflect the 'actual
price'.

Update: Properly punishing debt position owners when a bitAsset is oversupplied
is fine, since it encourages them to reduce supply proactively. From this point
of view, forced settlements can still play a role in the game, although it can
be replaced by forced margin calls. The thing is, target CR doesn't apply when
a debt position is being forced settled, so, not like margin calls which evenly
apply to all positions with (relatively) low CR, force settlements may punish a
few positions too hard, but don't punish other positions at all, so it's IMHO
not a fair enough rule.

I am still trying to figure out if incentives can be aligned for both sides
(shorts and longs) in bearish **and** bullish markets. IMHO, the ultimate goal
is to have a system where merely personal *opinion* about the market leads to
"taking" a side and not market-internal mechanics.