BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: alt on December 02, 2015, 01:23:31 pm
-
we just know, settlement price is not mean the real price, it's the price when somebody ask for a force settlement.
a shorter's collatereal will be forced sell at this price what ever if he have enough collatereal.
it's hurt the short very much. so I ask a 2% compensate for the shorters.
the rule should guarentee two thing:
1. if I want to buy bitCNY, I can buy it at price 1.0 + premium
2. if I want to sell bitCNY, I can sell it at price 1.0 - premium
and the premium should not too small, my suggest is more than 2%
then market maker will give a better offer, with more small premium
then we can buy/sell bitCNY at price 1.0 with small premium from the free wallet market.
force settlement is a way to guarentee you can sell bitCNY at a floor price, so I think the price should set to * (1.0 - premium) CNY/bitCNY
when the price of BTS is 0.02 CNY/BTS, witness should set settlement price to 0.02 / (1.0 - premium)
on the other hand, force settlement will hurt shorters, because this force them sell BTS even when they have enough collatereal.
so we should not encourage people use this, we can set the premium to 2% or more, as compensate for the one be settled.
for all witness, if you approve my point, you can change the parameter at xeroc's price scripts
set discount to 1.02
to avoid add aditional fee for bitCNY, you should change core_exchange_factor to 1.02 too
and set SQP more than 1020
and I want to tell again, let witness just input feed price, which is the real price from exchange
let commitee adust SQP, settlement price
-
So then a settlement will cost 2% and those 2% are given to the borrower(s) ..
Essentially, that "brakes the peg" such that the floor then would be $0.98 or 0.98CNY.
it makes sense to me ... it sounds like a compromise ..
fortunatelly .. we can have different discounts for different assets .. if people that trade CNY agree with that settlement cost .. why not ...
It does NOT automatically mean that we need to do this for the BTC and/or USD as well ..
Let's have a discussion about this please ..
//edit: @alt: Am I assuming correctly that this would correspond to a "discount = 1.02" in the current feed script implementation?
-
7% and if not enough interest -> 1% random are forced to force settle for 5% discount.
Main reason: I really did not read the rules to begin with...and I was hoping this force settlement will be somewhat more active. Now I might loose money if the above is not implemented ASAP.
-
What? My business plan was to make money shorting...and it is not happening. It must be a flaw in the system. My proposal will fix it...I believe.
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
-
I'm against this, merchants and users are supposed to have a price floor at feed price.
A user can always be sure he can exit at 1 USD or 1 CNY.
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
good me and alt can split 80% of it for life (2:5 of course - he suggested 2 I added 5, so only fair)
[edit] OK I give up on my lifetime fee stream, just make it happen!
I'm against this, merchants and users are supposed to have a price floor at feed price.
A user can always be sure he can exit at 1 USD or 1 CNY.
But it is 1:1 just you pay the fee if you want to force settle. There is even a discount on the fee if you are made to force settle!
Additionally we can make it even 1:1.02 peg (and 9-ish% fee.)
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
I don't want it as a fee, because this really hurt shorter, I want it all be a compensate for shorter.
-
from the beginning , we know peg means the price is 1.0+/-premium, price always more than 1.0 is not peg.
I don't know when have this changed?
I'm against this, merchants and users are supposed to have a price floor at feed price.
A user can always be sure he can exit at 1 USD or 1 CNY.
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
I don't want it as a fee, because this really hurt shorter, I want it all be a compensate for shorter.
I just meant to communicate it as a "fee" .. it will not be a fee given to the network .. it will all go to the shorts
The point is that the peg has to be maintained and we don't want to tell people .. "this floor feature breaks the peg"
I'm against this, merchants and users are supposed to have a price floor at feed price.
A user can always be sure he can exit at 1 USD or 1 CNY.
I agree with tonyk's statement that the settlement is a "rare" event and should have a cost associated .. 2% is not too much .. not sure if it should be 5% or even 7% .. (not my call to make)
-
yes, I agree 7% even 10% also is OK, this function is the last way to guarentee the bitasset's value,
In fact, this should never be used if the market is health, because the gateway, the free market can provide the fair order for you.
-
maybe we should make this a dependency on liquidity ..
if liquidity is bad .. premium is low say 1% ... if liquidity is high .. premium is also high, say 10%
-
+5%
-
Changing feed Params is like a country revaluing its currency. Bad idea. Instant 2% loss to everyone who was playing by the rules.
-
I agree with the concept, but I want to ask if this is the correct technical and organizational way of handling this.
1) Should changing the behavior of the system be a committee decision, not a witness decision?
2) Is the "correct" technical way of implementing this is to change
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 0
to
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 200
rather than messing with the feed? Adding a feed offset might complicate something else in the system, but there is a parameter that can be tweaked to do exactly what you want: charge settlers a premium for settling, and the premium goes to the shorter.
locked >>> get_object 1.3.120
get_object 1.3.120
[{
"id": "1.3.120",
"symbol": "EUR",
"precision": 4,
"issuer": "1.2.0",
"options": {
"max_supply": "1000000000000000",
"market_fee_percent": 0,
"max_market_fee": "1000000000000000",
"issuer_permissions": 511,
"flags": 128,
"core_exchange_rate": {
"base": {
"amount": 12,
"asset_id": "1.3.120"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 37854,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
},
"whitelist_authorities": [],
"blacklist_authorities": [],
"whitelist_markets": [],
"blacklist_markets": [],
"description": "1 euro",
"extensions": []
},
"dynamic_asset_data_id": "2.3.120",
"bitasset_data_id": "2.4.20"
}
]
locked >>> get_object 2.4.20
...
"current_feed": {
"settlement_price": {
"base": {
"amount": 6,
"asset_id": "1.3.120"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 19867,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
},
"maintenance_collateral_ratio": 1750,
"maximum_short_squeeze_ratio": 1100,
"core_exchange_rate": {
"base": {
"amount": 12,
"asset_id": "1.3.120"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 37854,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
}
},
"current_feed_publication_time": "2015-12-02T04:35:06",
"options": {
"feed_lifetime_sec": 86400,
"minimum_feeds": 7,
"force_settlement_delay_sec": 86400,
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 0,
"maximum_force_settlement_volume": 2000,
"short_backing_asset": "1.3.0",
"extensions": []
},
"force_settled_volume": 0,
"is_prediction_market": false,
"settlement_price": {
"base": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
},
"settlement_fund": 0
}
]
EDIT
Changing feed Params is like a country revaluing its currency. Bad idea. Instant 2% loss to everyone who was playing by the rules.
this is true, another reason why I think this should be done through committee as it has to weigh the pros and cons of the change
-
Changing feed Params is like a country revaluing its currency. Bad idea. Instant 2% loss to everyone who was playing by the rules.
Point taken ..
it also no longer represents a "fair" price ...
-
I agree with the concept, but is the "correct" way of implementing this is to change
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 0
to
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 200
rather than messing with the feed? Adding a feed offset might complicate something else in the system, but there is a parameter that can be tweaked to do exactly what you want: charge settlers a premium for settling, and the premium goes to the shorter.
didn't know that .. thanks for pointing it out
-
thanks, you are correct!
I agree with the concept, but is the "correct" way of implementing this is to change
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 0
to
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 200
rather than messing with the feed? Adding a feed offset might complicate something else in the system, but there is a parameter that can be tweaked to do exactly what you want: charge settlers a premium for settling, and the premium goes to the shorter.
locked >>> get_object 1.3.120
get_object 1.3.120
[{
"id": "1.3.120",
"symbol": "EUR",
"precision": 4,
"issuer": "1.2.0",
"options": {
"max_supply": "1000000000000000",
"market_fee_percent": 0,
"max_market_fee": "1000000000000000",
"issuer_permissions": 511,
"flags": 128,
"core_exchange_rate": {
"base": {
"amount": 12,
"asset_id": "1.3.120"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 37854,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
},
"whitelist_authorities": [],
"blacklist_authorities": [],
"whitelist_markets": [],
"blacklist_markets": [],
"description": "1 euro",
"extensions": []
},
"dynamic_asset_data_id": "2.3.120",
"bitasset_data_id": "2.4.20"
}
]
locked >>> get_object 2.4.20
...
"current_feed": {
"settlement_price": {
"base": {
"amount": 6,
"asset_id": "1.3.120"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 19867,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
},
"maintenance_collateral_ratio": 1750,
"maximum_short_squeeze_ratio": 1100,
"core_exchange_rate": {
"base": {
"amount": 12,
"asset_id": "1.3.120"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 37854,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
}
},
"current_feed_publication_time": "2015-12-02T04:35:06",
"options": {
"feed_lifetime_sec": 86400,
"minimum_feeds": 7,
"force_settlement_delay_sec": 86400,
"force_settlement_offset_percent": 0,
"maximum_force_settlement_volume": 2000,
"short_backing_asset": "1.3.0",
"extensions": []
},
"force_settled_volume": 0,
"is_prediction_market": false,
"settlement_price": {
"base": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
},
"quote": {
"amount": 0,
"asset_id": "1.3.0"
}
},
"settlement_fund": 0
}
]
-
I'd suggest everyone review some of the discussion and analysis that took place 7 months ago on these topics.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16143.msg206715.html#msg206715
There's a good bit of valuable information there.
-
I'd suggest everyone review some of the discussion and analysis that took place 7 months ago on these topics.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16143.msg206715.html#msg206715
There's a good bit of valuable information there.
excellent post, thank you for re-finding it!
-
Changing feed Params is like a country revaluing its currency. Bad idea. Instant 2% loss to everyone who was playing by the rules.
Point taken ..
it also no longer represents a "fair" price ...
this. please don't do follow this proposal
-
I'd suggest everyone review some of the discussion and analysis that took place 7 months ago on these topics.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,16143.msg206715.html#msg206715
There's a good bit of valuable information there.
excellent post, thank you for re-finding it!
Yes, but I did not read that and my business plan evolves making money shorting. So change the rule as suggested (7% fee for voluntarily initiating force settlement; 5% for involuntary initiating force settlement - 1% of all bitWhatever's circulation must be force settled daily ;the difference to 1% (if any) are random chosen asset holders that settle shorters and pay only 5% fee) ASAP.
I also think no one needs good and innovative products. Smart coins and such, every one is perfectly fine with a good old UIA. So each gateway will come with its own OPEN.bitUSD and offer it instead. They will make money on the transaction fee and the holders will have non decreasing supply thingy. Plus each gateway will claim and prove their UIA are totally backed by 'decreasing-supply bitUSD'. Risk are small, what we have not even 20% of all BTC exchanges have been hacked (self hacked) etc right? We can even improve clout suggestion and give 350-400 mil BTS to those gateways so they can jump start this idea themselves (or buy or short bitUSD)...or buy a casino or build crypto AdSense or something else profitable and use the proceeds to buy into this plan.
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
You're being sarcastic here, both of you? Right? PLEASE?
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
You're being sarcastic here, both of you? Right? PLEASE?
Haha im pretty sure tony is, but I'm not sure everyone else caught on so it turned into a serious discussion!
-
Good point .. @tonky
We could even ask for 7% since settlement was supposed to not happen anyway except for rare conditions ..
with x% we only need to make sure that the price feed is within x% tolerance to not have an exploitable settlement ...
I start to like this idea .. but we need to communicate this as a "fee" ..
You're being sarcastic here, both of you? Right? PLEASE?
Haha im pretty sure tony is, but I'm not sure everyone else caught on so it turned into a serious discussion!