BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on May 25, 2016, 03:40:56 am
-
after all the necessary process, now this proposal is on the final step, the committee proposal is created and will expire in 06/21.
if you are bitCNY holder or shorter, or if this change is important to you for any reason, please pay necessary attention to the status of the voting and take according action while necessary.
relevant links:
committee proposal: http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.286 (http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.286)
worker proposal 1.14.39: http://cryptofresh.com/workers (http://cryptofresh.com/workers)
BSIP:https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0016.md (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0016.md)
discussion thread:https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22355.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22355.0.html) https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22416.0.html (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22416.0.html)
-
if you are bitCNY holder or shorter, or if this change is important to you for any reason, please pay necessary attention to the status of the voting and take according action while necessary.
Ironically, bitCNY holders who will be robbed of 1% of their holdings by the proposal cannot vote.
worker proposal 1.14.39: http://cryptofresh.com/workers (http://cryptofresh.com/workers)
Why the worker?
-
if you are bitCNY holder or shorter, or if this change is important to you for any reason, please pay necessary attention to the status of the voting and take according action while necessary.
Ironically, bitCNY holders who will be robbed of 1% of their holdings by the proposal cannot vote.
worker proposal 1.14.39: http://cryptofresh.com/workers (http://cryptofresh.com/workers)
Why the worker?
every shareholders can vote to the committee members that hold the same opinion with him.
the worker is to see the opinion of the shareholders, as suggested.
-
@bitcrab is going about this the proper way. I am impressed and pleased by his patience and professional behavior.
He created a worker, which is not free, and it received over 250M votes over a period of weeks. This is enough votes to replace half the committee with his own supporters, but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
He then created the committee proposal, set to expire June 21. I think it's likely that @bitcrab he could have easily enacted this by June 1, but again, he provided another 3 weeks for discussion. We should appreciate his patience in this matter.
-
Its a tough decision.....we have to look foward....no doubt that the subject is being proposed as fair as this bussiness model allows....
We have to make smartcoins happen, liwquidity but of course trying being fair with everyone in the game.
-
@bitcrab is going about this the proper way. I am impressed and pleased by his patience and professional behavior.
He created a worker, which is not free, and it received over 250M votes over a period of weeks. This is enough votes to replace half the committee with his own supporters, but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
He then created the committee proposal, set to expire June 21. I think it's likely that @bitcrab he could have easily enacted this by June 1, but again, he provided another 3 weeks for discussion. We should appreciate his patience in this matter.
Agreed! +5%
-
but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
How generous of him!
Interesting way to look at what is supposed to be decentralized self-governance...
-
but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
How generous of him!
Interesting way to look at what is supposed to be decentralized self-governance...
It's an interesting side-effect of the committee structure. If you have enough voting power to elect the 5th-most-popular member, then you can replace positions 6th through 11th with duplicate sockpuppets, and take committee majority. I'd say that @bitcrab assembled a sizable amount of active voting power on this issue, so his actions have been limited in comparison to that.
We have a worker proposal FOR the change, but no worker proposal AGAINST. In order to judge community sentiment, we need both. It's hard to tell how many shareholders are against this. @bitcrab what do you think of a second worker to measure this?
-
@bitcrab is going about this the proper way. I am impressed and pleased by his patience and professional behavior.
He created a worker, which is not free, and it received over 250M votes over a period of weeks. This is enough votes to replace half the committee with his own supporters, but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
He then created the committee proposal, set to expire June 21. I think it's likely that @bitcrab he could have easily enacted this by June 1, but again, he provided another 3 weeks for discussion. We should appreciate his patience in this matter.
Agreed! +5%
+5%
-
approve_proposal you "1.10.286" {"active_approvals_to_add": ["you"]} truehttp://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.286
-
@chronos: voting against it is equivalent to voting for every other worker execpt this on ..
-
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.286
Review Period: Mon Jun 20, 2016 23:00 - Tue Jun 21, 2016 00:00
Is that accurate? 1 hour review period?!
-
http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.286
Is that accurate? 1 hour review period?!
Review period has always been at least 1 hr for committee proposal.
on proposal creation, it could have been used a higher number though, but the proposal expires after 24h anyways ..
-
@bitcrab is going about this the proper way. I am impressed and pleased by his patience and professional behavior.
He created a worker, which is not free, and it received over 250M votes over a period of weeks. This is enough votes to replace half the committee with his own supporters, but instead he has allowed the committee to remain and vote as they see fit.
He then created the committee proposal, set to expire June 21. I think it's likely that @bitcrab he could have easily enacted this by June 1, but again, he provided another 3 weeks for discussion. We should appreciate his patience in this matter.
I agree this is the proper way to handle controversial changes to the blockchain by the committee: official BSIP, time to review and community discussion, committee proposal with expiration date set a reasonable amount of time in the future, and a zero-pay worker to get stakeholder opinion on the matter so that committee members have a basis for their official position prior to proposal expiration with less risk of retaliatory unvoting for going one way or the other.
For less controversial changes, the committee can go with the less costly approach of simply voting on the proposal.
@Chronos: voting against it is equivalent to voting for every other worker execpt this on ..
Not really. That doesn't gauge whether those voters are even aware of the new worker. Nor does it allow aware voters to take a neutral option.
-
So we need a nay-worker to collect the votes for nay-sayers .. like me and @pc
I will create one ..
-
Here we go:
Those that do NOT want the settlement parameters changed, please approve this worker:
"1.14.40"
-
In the hangout yesterday, bytemaster hinted at a way to perform the proposed change without harming current holders of bitCNY. Basically, the idea would be to pay out a 1% bonus for bitCNY holders at the time the proposal takes effect. I think it might be possible, but it's not clear to me how pending orders on the DEX would have to be treated.
I suggest we postpone the current proposal until we have worked out a way to perform the desired changes without harming anyone.
-
After reading a lot I dont support the change too, but of course its difficult decision
-
In the hangout yesterday, bytemaster hinted at a way to perform the proposed change without harming current holders of bitCNY. Basically, the idea would be to pay out a 1% bonus for bitCNY holders at the time the proposal takes effect. I think it might be possible, but it's not clear to me how pending orders on the DEX would have to be treated.
I suggest we postpone the current proposal until we have worked out a way to perform the desired changes without harming anyone.
Interesting idea.
So the "bonus" fund would come from a worker? Current supply is about 600K CNY, so 1% would be 6K CNY, equivalent to ~240K BTS at current rate.
A possibility to game this, is to short & hold some CNY before the change, after got free bonus, close the position. It's hard to distinguish self-shorters because they can transfer CNY to other accounts.
-
So the "bonus" fund would come from a worker? Current supply is about 600K CNY, so 1% would be 6K CNY, equivalent to ~240K BTS at current rate.
A possibility to game this, is to short & hold some CNY before the change, after got free bonus, close the position. It's hard to distinguish self-shorters because they can transfer CNY to other accounts.
IMO the bonus would have to be paid by those who profit from the change, i. e. the shorters. That would also handle the problem of self-shorters.
Obviously this would be even more tricky to handle, because it requires cooperation from all shorters.
-
So the "bonus" fund would come from a worker? Current supply is about 600K CNY, so 1% would be 6K CNY, equivalent to ~240K BTS at current rate.
A possibility to game this, is to short & hold some CNY before the change, after got free bonus, close the position. It's hard to distinguish self-shorters because they can transfer CNY to other accounts.
IMO the bonus would have to be paid by those who profit from the change, i. e. the shorters. That would also handle the problem of self-shorters.
Obviously this would be even more tricky to handle, because it requires cooperation from all shorters.
So it's not an option for current case.
By the way I'm going to approve the committee proposal. @bitcrab as current leader of Chinese community deserves our support, just like how we supported BM in the past.
-
Thanks to the committee members that support this proposal, currently the proposal has got enough approval and will be executed at 21st, June.
kindly remind relevant parties, especially bitCNY holders, to be aware of this and take actions if you feel necessary.
-
Congratulations @bitcrab on a well-executed proposal.
If this change goes smoothly and is well-accepted by the community, I would like to propose that the same changes be applied to other official BTS SmartCoins such as BitUSD, BitEUR and BitGold. As has been mentioned, there is value in having all the official tokens follow the same basic forced-settlement parameters.
Thanks!
-
The recent events on ETH/TheDAO bear a lot of parallels with the proposal discussed here. Of course when I wrote https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cyrano.witness/before-entering-into-a-smart-contract--read-the-fine-print I didn't dream of someone screwing the DAO. However, that's what happened: someone read the "fine print" of the DAO contract, and used it to his advantage.
Today, I read this comment (https://steemit.com/ethereum/@hipster/my-humble-statement-on-thedao#@bitcube/re-nanzo-scoop-re-hipster-my-humble-statement-on-thedao-20160618t172818611z) from @cube, which got me thinking:
Yes, "the intent of the parties" is the key.
I agree. Whenever a disagreement about the interpretation of a contract is brought before a court, the court will take a step back and try to find out what the original intent of the parties was when the contract was set up. The precise wording of the contract is relevant only insofar as it sheds some light on that question - which is usually the case, but the truth is bigger than the wording of a contract.
I think in our case here, the intent is quite clear:
SmartCoins are guaranteed to be worth at least their face value
- https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/
Even some newer documentation that postdates BSIP-0016, like EstefanTT's writeup or Chronos' first video states that bitassets can be redeemed for their equivalent value in BTS. Which will no longer be true after BSIP-0016 has been accepted. The 1:1 settlement guarantee is the big print, and IMO that's clearly the intent of our BitAssets smart contract.
@cube @datasecuritynode @clayop @Harvey @abit @ebit @bitcrab - please reconsider your vote on 1.10.286.
Thanks.
-
The recent events on ETH/TheDAO bear a lot of parallels with the proposal discussed here. Of course when I wrote https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cyrano.witness/before-entering-into-a-smart-contract--read-the-fine-print I didn't dream of someone screwing the DAO. However, that's what happened: someone read the "fine print" of the DAO contract, and used it to his advantage.
Today, I read this comment (https://steemit.com/ethereum/@hipster/my-humble-statement-on-thedao#@bitcube/re-nanzo-scoop-re-hipster-my-humble-statement-on-thedao-20160618t172818611z) from @cube, which got me thinking:
Yes, "the intent of the parties" is the key.
I agree. Whenever a disagreement about the interpretation of a contract is brought before a court, the court will take a step back and try to find out what the original intent of the parties was when the contract was set up. The precise wording of the contract is relevant only insofar as it sheds some light on that question - which is usually the case, but the truth is bigger than the wording of a contract.
I think in our case here, the intent is quite clear:
SmartCoins are guaranteed to be worth at least their face value
- https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/
Even some newer documentation that postdates BSIP-0016, like EstefanTT's writeup or Chronos' first video states that bitassets can be redeemed for their equivalent value in BTS. Which will no longer be true after BSIP-0016 has been accepted. The 1:1 settlement guarantee is the big print, and IMO that's clearly the intent of our BitAssets smart contract.
@cube @datasecuritynode @clayop @Harvey @abit @ebit @bitcrab - please reconsider your vote on 1.10.286.
Thanks.
The words on bitshares.org were BM's idea, not the current major stake holders'.
Although probably stake holders agree with those at that time, stake holders may have changed, or their opinions have changed. That's the game. Worker voting has spoken.
I do understand you're disappointed on something. So did I.
-
Although probably stake holders agree with those at that time, stake holders may have changed, or their opinions have changed. That's the game. Worker voting has spoken.
That's my point. Worker voting is irrelevant, because you cannot retroactively change the original intent of a contract by vote.
If someone thinks that (like in the case of ETH/DAO) the code is *not* the law but that intent matters, the logical conclusion is that they must oppose BSIP-0016.
-
Like i said before im not tech or economics...n now. I just hope everything goes well for bitcny one of best smartcoins performers....I dont see anything wrong with that if you consider that our product is slowly growing....n changes can affect confidence....but lets hope it is for the best n that bitcny n smartcoins can shine
-
Like i said before im not tech or economics...n now. I just hope everything goes well for bitcny one of best smartcoins performers....I dont see anything wrong with that if you consider that our product is slowly growing....n changes can affect confidence....but lets hope it is for the best n that bitcny n smartcoins can shine
You don't have to be a tech or economics expert to answer the simple question:
Would you enter a contract where your counterparty can change the rules anytime they want?
And now tell me how that makes smartcoins shine.
-
Like I said I disagree but I respect, It was a lot of talk, posts, its clear in the blockchain, so I hope people can take the best of it, if we we see a growth in the market we all will change a perception of some thing, lets give time, people are already aware, lets give it some support
-
After extensive debate about BSIP 0016, it is now scheduled to go into effect on June 21. Some have argued that this breaches the implicit contract that smart coins are convertible to 100% of their BTS value. In this post, I argue that this change does not breach the contract.
The question comes down to this: what is the contract around BitCNY? I believe it is a social contract: a contract for stable value. This is why Bytemaster designed the forced-settlement parameter to be adjustable by the committee. It could have been hard-coded, which would be a technical contract for 100% BTS convertibility, but I think that would leave SmartCoin pegs more brittle, subject to greater volatility.
If the peg breaks out to the upside, the forced-settlement parameter can be lowered, to incentivize traders to bring it back down. If the price pushes below the peg, the parameter can be brought up to 100% to instantly correct it.
It should be noted that, similar to how other markets work, sometimes the expectation and potential of these changes is enough to affect the market. For example, traders are more likely to sell their BitCNY at 105% of the price feed, instead of letting the price creep even higher, when they know that the committee will step in to bring the peg back to sanity in the case of a runaway peg.
If the SmartCoin peg were a technical contract for 100% convertibility, it would have been designed as such, without making parameters changeable by committee. Instead, the committee does have this power, making it a social contract to track a price feed. This social contract will be maintained by BSIP 0016.
After we have time to observe the effect of this change on the market, I would like to propose that all other SmartCoin pegs (BitUSD, BitBTC, etc.) make a similar change to 99% convertibility. As some have pointed out, the consistency across the ecosystem would be desirable.
-
Also note: this 99% settlement rule allows for some inaccuracy in the feed price without penalizing organizations that offer one-to-one trades between SmartCoins and their backing asset. (Example: BitCNY to CNY via Transwiser.)
For this reason, combined with those in my prior post, I'm in support of this change.
-
After extensive debate about BSIP 0016, it is now scheduled to go into effect on June 21. Some have argued that this breaches the implicit contract that smart coins are convertible to 100% of their BTS value. In this post, I argue that this change does not breach the contract.
The question comes down to this: what is the contract around BitCNY? I believe it is a social contract: a contract for stable value. This is why Bytemaster designed the forced-settlement parameter to be adjustable by the committee. It could have been hard-coded, which would be a technical contract for 100% BTS convertibility, but I think that would leave SmartCoin pegs more brittle, subject to greater volatility.
If the peg breaks out to the upside, the forced-settlement parameter can be lowered, to incentivize traders to bring it back down. If the price pushes below the peg, the parameter can be brought up to 100% to instantly correct it.
It should be noted that, similar to how other markets work, sometimes the expectation and potential of these changes is enough to affect the market. For example, traders are more likely to sell their BitCNY at 105% of the price feed, instead of letting the price creep even higher, when they know that the committee will step in to bring the peg back to sanity in the case of a runaway peg.
If the SmartCoin peg were a technical contract for 100% convertibility, it would have been designed as such, without making parameters changeable by committee. Instead, the committee does have this power, making it a social contract to track a price feed. This social contract will be maintained by BSIP 0016.
+5%
Yes, this is my understanding as well, which I described previously in this post (https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cyrano.witness/before-entering-into-a-smart-contract--read-the-fine-print#@arha%67/re-cyranowitness-before-entering-into-a-smart-contract--read-the-fine-print-20160526t141537987z). This is why I don't believe the proposal (http://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.286) violates the intent behind the BitCNY smartcoin.
There is however a dispute in the community regarding this manner. So how does a decentralized blockchain settle the dispute? As I described in this post (https://steemit.com/ethereum/@arha%67/my-thoughts-on-the-debate-currently-occurring-in-the-ethereum-community-over-the-dao-hack) sharing my thoughts on the The DAO hack and Ethereum's hard forking choice, there needs to be some arbitration process by a decentralized group that people entering into the contract agreed to. Well BitShares 2.0 has that via our on-blockchain governance features. (Technically all blockchains have it ultimately through users choosing which fork they wish to adopt, but it is more convenient to formalize the consensus process with governance mechanisms on the blockchain itself.) The community has gone through the proper process (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22531.msg293154.html#msg293154), and it seems the result is clear: it appears that BSIP 16 is going to pass.
Now this doesn't mean that I necessarily think the proposal is a good idea or that it will actually help the peg. But I just wanted to point out that I do not personally believe this change violates the intent of the smartcoin smart contract, and that the community has gone through the proper human-based decentralized arbitration process using our governance features (by voting on the 0-pay worker to support the change and not voting out the committee members who approve the proposal) to settle the dispute regarding whether the smartcoin intent is violated by this proposal.
-
The recent events on ETH/TheDAO bear a lot of parallels with the proposal discussed here. Of course when I wrote https://steemit.com/bitshares/@cyrano.witness/before-entering-into-a-smart-contract--read-the-fine-print I didn't dream of someone screwing the DAO. However, that's what happened: someone read the "fine print" of the DAO contract, and used it to his advantage.
Today, I read this comment (https://steemit.com/ethereum/@hipster/my-humble-statement-on-thedao#@bitcube/re-nanzo-scoop-re-hipster-my-humble-statement-on-thedao-20160618t172818611z) from @cube, which got me thinking:
Yes, "the intent of the parties" is the key.
I agree. Whenever a disagreement about the interpretation of a contract is brought before a court, the court will take a step back and try to find out what the original intent of the parties was when the contract was set up. The precise wording of the contract is relevant only insofar as it sheds some light on that question - which is usually the case, but the truth is bigger than the wording of a contract.
I think in our case here, the intent is quite clear:
SmartCoins are guaranteed to be worth at least their face value
- https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/
Even some newer documentation that postdates BSIP-0016, like EstefanTT's writeup or Chronos' first video states that bitassets can be redeemed for their equivalent value in BTS. Which will no longer be true after BSIP-0016 has been accepted. The 1:1 settlement guarantee is the big print, and IMO that's clearly the intent of our BitAssets smart contract.
@cube @datasecuritynode @clayop @Harvey @abit @ebit @bitcrab - please reconsider your vote on 1.10.286.
Thanks.
This is a good time I suppose to explain why @datasecuritynode choose to vote this way.
From what was observed, the Worker through which a polling of the community was taken on this particular change was done, and it was given support.
It's been seen the arguments for and against this and a similar perspective of what has already been expressed regarding social contracts and the intent are shared.
It's believed in this instance that as a Committee member, the vote should go the way the majority of stakeholder voters are choosing to go on this particular matter.
In the end, if it turned out to be a bad decision, it can always be turned around again.
This ability to move and adjust to conditions is what gives the network amazing capacity.
-
this is ridiculous. if this really increases liquidity ill rescind that comment however. but when will we tell ? if we had steem dollars already I would have force settled all my bitCNY. but i take loss.
i expected xeroc to vote this down.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
What's the latest with this? Feedback from the CNY users?
-
Why the 99% settlement rule become 101% settlement in fact？
-
Why the 99% settlement rule become 101% settlement in fact？
Have you tried to settle and received more than you expected?
-
Why the 99% settlement rule become 101% settlement in fact？
Have you tried to settle and received more than you expected?
MY deposited bts was just settled at the feed price 0.033，settle price 0.032644 CNY/bts： block #7403434
-
And the world didn't end?
-
Why the 99% settlement rule become 101% settlement in fact？
Have you tried to settle and received more than you expected?
MY deposited bts was just settled at the feed price 0.033，settle price 0.032644 CNY/bts： block #7403434
it's difficult to tell if there is something wrong because of the price movements currently ..
please distinguish between "settlement price" and "price feed" .. one of both has the 1% offset, the other has not ..
I think the GUI shows the settlement price and not the actual price feed ..
-
Why the 99% settlement rule become 101% settlement in fact？
Have you tried to settle and received more than you expected?
MY deposited bts was just settled at the feed price 0.033，settle price 0.032644 CNY/bts： block #7403434
it's difficult to tell if there is something wrong because of the price movements currently ..
please distinguish between "settlement price" and "price feed" .. one of both has the 1% offset, the other has not ..
I think the GUI shows the settlement price and not the actual price feed ..
I saw the settlement price 0.032644 and the actual price feed 0.033.
you can see the difference between the settlement price and the actual price feed NOW!
-
if you want to settle, you HAVE bitCNY .. and you want to settle FOR BTS. So as the long that wants to settle, you get LESS BTS .. that looks totally fine for me
-
if you want to settle, you HAVE bitCNY .. and you want to settle FOR BTS. So as the long that wants to settle, you get LESS BTS .. that looks totally fine for me
"if you want to settle, you HAVE bitCNY .. and you want to settle FOR BTS. So as the long that wants to settle, you get LESS BTS .. "
That's the point.
BUT I get MORE BTS now, as the settle price of BTS is lower than the actual price feed. So, I can buy more BTS with bitCNY at lower price.
-
Given your numbers, you are actually correct:
settlement price 0.032644 CNY per BTS
.. that means one BTS costs you 0.032644 CNY
.. that means for 1 CNY, you get 30.63350 BTS
actual price feed 0.033 CNY per BTS
.. that means on BTS costs you 0.033 CNY
.. that means for 1 CNY, you get 30.303
but where exactly did you get them? The cli-wallet only knows what is denoted as "settlement_price" ..
-
Given your numbers, you are actually correct:
settlement price 0.032644 CNY per BTS
.. that means one BTS costs you 0.032644 CNY
.. that means for 1 CNY, you get 30.63350 BTS
actual price feed 0.033 CNY per BTS
.. that means on BTS costs you 0.033 CNY
.. that means for 1 CNY, you get 30.303
but where exactly did you get them? The cli-wallet only knows what is denoted as "settlement_price" ..
[/quote
https://bitshares.openledger.info/#/market/BTS_CNY
-
Hallo do you experienced more liquidity and Interest in the CNY smart contract with this new feature?
-
I don't see the price feed there .. all I see is the settlement price and the "LAST PRICE" which is the price of the last filled order!
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
+5% +5%
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?
We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?
We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.
in my view the logic is simple, because the change changed the expectation of the players, especially the shorters.
actually bitCNY can be used in many cases - to buy other assets in DEX, to deposit to btc38 just as fiat CNY, to just withdraw from transwiser - so there is always demand for BTS holders to short out bitCNY , but they always worry about being force settled, this worry prevent them from shorting.
now the 1% offset reduced the worry greatly and shorters have more incentive to short.
is it just regular market movement? I don't think so, in the weeks before and after the change, there's no other big change in BTS ecosystem that can make bitCNY supply increase at close to 50%, and we can see that bitUSD supply has no obvious change in the same period.
-
bump :D
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?
We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.
in my view the logic is simple, because the change changed the expectation of the players, especially the shorters.
actually bitCNY can be used in many cases - to buy other assets in DEX, to deposit to btc38 just as fiat CNY, to just withdraw from transwiser - so there is always demand for BTS holders to short out bitCNY , but they always worry about being force settled, this worry prevent them from shorting.
now the 1% offset reduced the worry greatly and shorters have more incentive to short.
is it just regular market movement? I don't think so, in the weeks before and after the change, there's no other big change in BTS ecosystem that can make bitCNY supply increase at close to 50%, and we can see that bitUSD supply has no obvious change in the same period.
+5% +5%
-
A
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?
We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.
in my view the logic is simple, because the change changed the expectation of the players, especially the shorters.
actually bitCNY can be used in many cases - to buy other assets in DEX, to deposit to btc38 just as fiat CNY, to just withdraw from transwiser - so there is always demand for BTS holders to short out bitCNY , but they always worry about being force settled, this worry prevent them from shorting.
now the 1% offset reduced the worry greatly and shorters have more incentive to short.
is it just regular market movement? I don't think so, in the weeks before and after the change, there's no other big change in BTS ecosystem that can make bitCNY supply increase at close to 50%, and we can see that bitUSD supply has no obvious change in the same period.
So there are few things here.
You are saying that because of market support there is a reason for shorters to be creating bitCNY.
Following that you then said that the 1% offset reduced the worry of shorters.
So can you explain what the worry was that shorters had if there was already the market support as you described for bitCNY?
-
last days bitcny was making huge volume in poloniex n good volume in dex...congratulations, clearly something improved.
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?
We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.
in my view the logic is simple, because the change changed the expectation of the players, especially the shorters.
actually bitCNY can be used in many cases - to buy other assets in DEX, to deposit to btc38 just as fiat CNY, to just withdraw from transwiser - so there is always demand for BTS holders to short out bitCNY , but they always worry about being force settled, this worry prevent them from shorting.
now the 1% offset reduced the worry greatly and shorters have more incentive to short.
is it just regular market movement? I don't think so, in the weeks before and after the change, there's no other big change in BTS ecosystem that can make bitCNY supply increase at close to 50%, and we can see that bitUSD supply has no obvious change in the same period.
So there are few things here.
You are saying that because of market support there is a reason for shorters to be creating bitCNY.
Following that you then said that the 1% offset reduced the worry of shorters.
So can you explain what the worry was that shorters had if there was already the market support as you described for bitCNY?
That's really not what he said. What he said was that people wanted to short bitCNY but were concerned about being forced settled. He also said the increase in bitCNY supply since adjusting the offset was not due to market movement considering bitUSD did not experience the same increase in supply during the same period. I think he makes a compelling case, and perhaps we should consider the same adjustment for bitUSD (or even all BitAssets).
-
last days bitcny was making huge volume in poloniex n good volume in dex...congratulations, clearly something improved.
Yes, congratulations to all. This CNY tx uptrend is much needed and a breathe of fresh air. We have a bit of a celebration here.
-
Hallo, again could you give us some feedback?
Does this new settlement fee improve liquidity and interest in CNY?
@bitcrab
before this change the supply of bitCNY is less than 800K, now it is 1100K and keep on increasing...
going ahead, bitCNY will be used as trade base in many markets.
Can you describe how the change has contributed to this?
We need more details to know this isn't just regular market movement.
in my view the logic is simple, because the change changed the expectation of the players, especially the shorters.
actually bitCNY can be used in many cases - to buy other assets in DEX, to deposit to btc38 just as fiat CNY, to just withdraw from transwiser - so there is always demand for BTS holders to short out bitCNY , but they always worry about being force settled, this worry prevent them from shorting.
now the 1% offset reduced the worry greatly and shorters have more incentive to short.
is it just regular market movement? I don't think so, in the weeks before and after the change, there's no other big change in BTS ecosystem that can make bitCNY supply increase at close to 50%, and we can see that bitUSD supply has no obvious change in the same period.
So there are few things here.
You are saying that because of market support there is a reason for shorters to be creating bitCNY.
Following that you then said that the 1% offset reduced the worry of shorters.
So can you explain what the worry was that shorters had if there was already the market support as you described for bitCNY?
That's really not what he said. What he said was that people wanted to short bitCNY but were concerned about being forced settled. He also said the increase in bitCNY supply since adjusting the offset was not due to market movement considering bitUSD did not experience the same increase in supply during the same period. I think he makes a compelling case, and perhaps we should consider the same adjustment for bitUSD (or even all BitAssets).
Yes absolutely, I agree
-
Will you also do market making on poloniex? I reckon it makes more sense doing it on chinese exchanges, but since polo has the volume