256
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [worker proposal] 201707-bsip18: Worker has been created as "1.14.56"
« on: December 12, 2017, 04:46:38 pm »1. do you think this is a flaw? or it's a right logic?
I think it is the right logic. When a black swan happens, the peg is broken, and holders of the bitasset can settle their holdings at the price of the least collateralized short. This is the defined behaviour of our smart coins, see for example https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/ :
Quote
If this revaluation happens faster than the short positions can be forced to cover, then all SmartCoins are liquidated at the exchange rate of the least collateralized short position. This is similar to an insolvent bank converting its deposits to equity.
The fact that the backing collateral increased significantly in value since the black swan is irrelevant. With the black swan, the collateral put into the settlement fund effectively belongs to the holders of the smartcoins.
2. did you descipe all the rules changed because of BSIP18 really clearly? did you descipe this rule?where have you discuss these?
Yes, see BSIP-18 (emphasis added):
Quote
When a market-pegged asset undergoes a global settlement, [,,,] the outstanding debt (the BitAsset long positions) are still collateralized through the settlement pool at the fixed settlement price. It is even possible that the value of the collateral exceeds the nominal value of the MPA significantly.
Bugfix: MPAs that have seen a global settlement cannot be settled after the price feed expires
It has turned out that force-settling an MPA requires a valid price feed even when the MPA has a settlement_price set. This is clearly a bug, since in that case the settlement price is independent from the price feed. Furthermore, publishing price feeds is no longer possible after a global settlement, so the time when settlement is possible at all is limited to the expiration period of the price feed of the MPA.
This bug will be fixed. See https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/664#issuecomment-254056746 for a discussion.
BSIP-18 was discussed here: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,24322.0.html .
3. did the share holders really know these rule? and who reviewed these rules? who make the decition to change rule like this?
The shareholders have approved of these rules in the usual process, i. e. through a worker proposal. I can only assume that everyone involved did their due diligence.
4. who will take responsibility for the fault?
5. how do you avoid next mess up?
There is neither fault nor mess up.