就算没有比喂价高的买单，short成交还要按照利息排序。如果要自己short给自己，必须肯出高利息才行。
直接抵押借出bitcny的话利息怎么算？如果算0利息的话就和现在的设计矛盾了。按照现在的算法必须按利息高低排序成交。如果允许0利息自己借给自己，那就没有人愿意付利息去short了。

註冊一個鄭伊健會不會有人投票給我呢？

Although pegging is supposed to keep the value at 1:1, there is always a feeling that bit asset is not as valuable as real asset. Reasoning as follows. Feed price should be a good indication of current market price of bitshares. At external markets, when you sell at bitshares at market price, most likely you'll expect to sell at lower than feed price. On the other hand, if you buy bitshares at market price, you'll have to pay more than feed price. However, at the internal market, almost for sure you can sell bitshares at or higher than feed price. Of course, when you buy bitshares, you'll have to pay much higher than the feed price. Obviously there is difference between bit asset and real asset. Although it's hard to say how much difference there is, it is not hard to see that bit asset is actually cheaper.
One possible solution is to lower the feed price by maybe 1%. The disallows the guarantee of selling of bitshare at feed price, therefore increases the value of bit assets.

Although forcing the settlement of USD might be good for the system, as a user it's hard to imagine that the system could tamper with the USD deposited in each account. I believe the current release just continues working and hopes that this never happens or can be solved in the future.
There should better be a low limit of the selling wall, so that if feed goes too low the selling price won't follow. That probably offers a chance to solve the deficit in the future. Otherwise it might be causing permanent deficit in the system and not sure if there will be a way to solve it.

So one can never buy below the feed price? Even when all shorts are gone?

ID: bigcat

支持！
bts: bigcat

反对通胀的，把3i的代码fork出来，把50改成0，编译发布不就行了？