BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on November 13, 2017, 04:41:42 pm
-
firstly let's review what happened in the passed several days:
poloniex, the exchange with highest BTS trading volume, has some issue and stopped processing BTS withdrawl.
BTC/BCH war lead to big fluctuation of BTC price and also the blockchain traffic jam.
thanks to China goverment, now people from China feel trouble to buy cryptocurrencies by CNY.
all these lead to a big gap between the BTS price in bitCNY and the settlement price, and this lead to endless settle orders, speculators come and exploit shorters.
Settlements purpose is to provide a last resort guarenteed exit. In a healthy market it is not needed.
settlers need to pay for this convenience while forcing this inconvenience on to the shorters. this is the settlement compensation ratio, and now it is set to 1% for almost all the smartcoins.
now bitCNY ecosystem has developed to an extent, which makes settlement of little sense, there's no scenario that bitCNY holders need to submit settlement to claim the value of bitCNY. on the other side, when sometimes the market is in inefficient or disrupt status, the settlement provide the opportunity for speculators to exploit the shorters and also hurt the ecosystem. this is not we want from settlement.
bitCNY is in shortage, these 2 days because of the settlement exploit it is in more serious shortage, however, now exchanges such as aex.com and xbricks.io are beginning to open bitCNY market, we can expect that the demand for bitCNY will rise rapidly to above 1 billion level. to meet this demand we definitely need to prevent the shorters from being hurt unfairly and avoid the happening of settlement exploition.
surely price feeding is a key factor and should be improved, but in such a fragile market, feed disparity is bound to happen. we cannot expect the price feeding always be adapted in time to fit the latest market status.
what I suggest to solve this problem is to raise the settlement compensation offset to 5%, only for bitCNY, leave other smartcoins unchanged.
as now settlement contribute little to a healthy bitCNY economy, raise the offset to 5% do not hurt the peg of bitCNY and will encourage shorters to provide more bitCNY to meet the demand.
I plan to create such a committee proposal soon as the settlement exploition is still on going and no one knows when it can come to an end.
any ideas, please discuss here.
-
what I suggest to solve this problem is to raise the settlement compensation offset to 5%, only for bitCNY
Do you want it to drop below the feed price even more? Good luck with that.
-
I agree increasing the settlement offset percentage here is a prudent response.
I'll paste here what I said in telegram chat regarding this.
Settlements purpose is to provide a last resort guarenteed exit. In a healthy market settlement shouldn't be needed. At the edges of the healthy market you should expect to pay a fee[offset] for this convenience where you are forcing this inconvenience on to the shorters. In a small wild market, I'd expect the fee[offset] to be large. As the market grows the fee could move closer to feed.
At the moment a low diversity market with few connecting branches causes a disperity in feed and localized pricing when disrupted. With a settlement fee[offset] too low, this allows the opportunity to exploit not balance. Settlement should be set just outside the markets general deviations, to provide a backstop or guarentee not an avenue for arbitrage. If the settlement is being used in large quantity for this purpose, to me it says the fee is too small.
I would support raising the fee[offset]. The goal should be to have as low a fee as possible. Efforts should be made to improve the markets liquidity and robustness to meet that goal. Not the other way around. Feeds of course are a factor in this and should be improved, but with so few connections in such a small fragile market, feed disparity is bound to happen and no "real price" can be objectivly stated or expected. Adjust the fee to compensate for the market disparity.
edit: fee = offset
-
谨慎支持，但还是太过刚性了点；数学是最美的语言，后期升级可考虑依靠等差数列模式来提高高倍率抵押者补偿溢价，譬如2倍以下不补偿或1%，2到3倍3%，3到4倍5%，... 当系统遇到市场内外不平衡的状况时，系统自适应收敛流动性即可从容应对，系统不但弹性空间大，鲁棒性也得到改善；相对改喂价机制，我更赞成系统内参数的调优优化，作为一个应急措施，5%溢价补贴抵押者，5%基本上可以覆盖投机者的利润空间了，可以接受。
-
We've had a lengthy discussion on the subject before, and back then we were arguing about 1%, not 5.
I think the settlement offset is a blatant violation of the settlement guarantee. Raising the offset means ripping off the holders of bitCNY, which will further serve to destroy the credibility of bitAssets as a concept.
It is especially unfair to those who have already requested forced settlement, because they cannot undo their settlement requests. They will simply receive another 4% less than what they were supposed to receive.
Once again the largest shorters of bitCNY are abusing their power to scam the users of our DEX.
-
Why not just increase Settlement delay? Should solve the issue.
-
force settlement offset should not be adjusted below 1%.
Witnesses should be feeding in correct CNY prices instead.
-
force settlement offset should not be adjusted below 1%.
Witnesses should be feeding in correct CNY prices instead.
There is no such thing as 1 correct price. In a world market you have wide variance from location to location especially with high volatility and trading pathway disruption. The mean price in US might be 10% lower or higher than the mean in China. If the feed is simply between the two you still have a 5% difference on either side. With a 1% settlement offset this gives heavy incentive to use/abuse the settlement for a purpose it was not designed for. Forced settlement price should sit just outside this market disparity. We should not be guaranteeing settlement at a price inside this global price disparity. As it stands we are encouraging people to settle.
Some type of smart settlement adjustment metric might incorporate a volatility index that looks at change in price over a period of time as well as price feed deviation from the mean. If a majority of witnesses are reporting feeds significantly different from each other this could effect the settlement offset. Alternatively if price is stable and witnesses are all reporting in a tight group the settlement offset can come down to meet it.
-
force settlement offset should not be adjusted below 1%.
Witnesses should be feeding in correct CNY prices instead.
There is no such thing as 1 correct price. In a world market you have wide variance from location to location especially with high volatility and trading pathway disruption. The mean price in US might be 10% lower or higher than the mean in China. If the feed is simply between the two you still have a 5% difference on either side. With a 1% settlement offset this gives heavy incentive to use/abuse the settlement for a purpose it was not designed for. Forced settlement price should sit just outside this market disparity. We should not be guaranteeing settlement at a price inside this global price disparity. As it stands we are encouraging people to settle.
Some type of smart settlement adjustment metric might incorporate a volatility index that looks at change in price over a period of time as well as price feed deviation from the mean. If a majority of witnesses are reporting feeds significantly different from each other this could effect the settlement offset. Alternatively if price is stable and witnesses are all reporting in a tight group the settlement offset can come down to meet it.
Witnesses should be combining BTS prices from different exchanges giving more weight to those with big volume to create an accurate feed price. The forced settlement is the only thing that makes the peg certain if such major goal posts get moved then our stablecoins aren't safe.
-
There is no such thing as 1 correct price.
There is no such thing, but we have to derive one out of variety of prices, because we need a single price for reference to make bitAssets work.
-
We've had a lengthy discussion on the subject before, and back then we were arguing about 1%, not 5.
I think the settlement offset is a blatant violation of the settlement guarantee. Raising the offset means ripping off the holders of bitCNY, which will further serve to destroy the credibility of bitAssets as a concept.
It is especially unfair to those who have already requested forced settlement, because they cannot undo their settlement requests. They will simply receive another 4% less than what they were supposed to receive.
Once again the largest shorters of bitCNY are abusing their power to scam the users of our DEX.
surely the apply of this plan need some time, and before that we'll announce this change to public, it has no effect on the already placed settle orders, and the potential settlers will be noticed about this.
for the smartcoin like bitRUBLE, its ecosystem is undeveloped yet, settlement may play an important role for claiming values of smartcoins, but for bitCNY which has a mature ecosystem, settlement is not needed, and the key point is to increase supply.
I have discussed with aex and xbrick people, they do not worry the credibility of bitCNY, but they worry a lot on the supply of bitCNY, they doubt it cannot fulfill the market demand.
I am a big shorter, how can I scam the DEX users? please let me know. shorters are always under the risk of margin call, small shorters can easily increase the collateral ratio to avoid such risk, but it is always difficult for big shorters to do that, big shorters need to be more careful.
-
Witnesses should be combining BTS prices from different exchanges giving more weight to those with big volume to create an accurate feed price. The forced settlement is the only thing that makes the peg certain if such major goal posts get moved then our stablecoins aren't safe.
no, the core design for pegging is margin call, not settlement, settlement can help pegging when there is no developed ecosystem, but it also provide opportunity to hurt the ecosystem.
and the plan does not remove the settlement, it just increase the offset, we can watch how bitCNY behaves after this change, if some unexpected event happen, for example, bitCNY price drop to 0.95CNY, committee surely have chance to change the offset back.
-
committee proposal created, hope it can get enough support.
review will begin 3 days later, actually this is a little urgent so a comparatively short period is set, however, we still have enough time to reminder the potential settlers.
https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.5244 (https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.5244)
-
Get the witnesses to adjust their price feeds 5% lower.
witnesses should be able to react, they get paid $50k a week to do this.
i will not support 5% force settle offset when its a simple case of witnesses not providing the correct feed.
-
+5%
-
Get the witnesses to adjust their price feeds 5% lower.
witnesses should be able to react, they get paid $50k a week to do this.
i will not support 5% force settle offset when its a simple case of witnesses not providing the correct feed.
Price feeds from witnesses, and the parameters of the bitAssets, are two factors of the issue, or say, they're two different "tools" that can be used to "macro-control" the system, just like how the governments and/or central banks are affecting the economy. I'm not sure if I used the correct words here, but wish you can understand.
Anyway, stake holders have the final say, they vote on witnesses and committee members.
As a stake holder, I don't have a clear opinion on the issue so far.
As a witness, my own price feeds are usually on the opposite side recently since my price sources are a bit different.
-
no, the core design for pegging is margin call, not settlement
No, margin call does not keep the peg, forced settlement does (only from one side though).
we can watch how bitCNY behaves after this change, if some unexpected event happen, for example, bitCNY price drop to 0.95CNY
This is exactly what is expected and for sure will happen. When the price of bitAsset drops below the peg, you need to settle more, not less to keep the peg. With 5% offset bitCNY holders will not be able to sell it, and will not be able to settle it at fair price. If you want, go ahead, try it, but give us some time before this to get rid of bitCNY.
-
I am undecided on this issue but tend to agree with abit.
For me, the settlement is the crucial part that ensures a lower bound on the price of bitassets.
Margin calls ensure that shorts provide sufficient collateral or are liquidated.
To me, bitassets work as intended:
If people sell their bitCNY below the price feed, others should buy them up and settle them to make a profit, this strengthens the peg
This of course assumes a fair price feed.
Problems arise if people can obtain bitCNY for "cheaper" than they are expected to, then they can get into BTS for cheaper than buying BTS directly - at the cost of the shorter.
If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.
-
If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.
according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?
the problem is:
1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.
2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!
-
If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.
according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?
the problem is:
1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.
2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!
What are you talking about? You are settled at a fair face value. Besides, you can take advantage of low bitCNY price and close your position at discount value before you are forced settled. When bitCNY price goes up again, just short it again, it takes a couple of clicks. Where is unfairness?
-
If I was short on bitCNY, i would make sure there are no bitCNY sell orders below the peg - and if there were, I would buy them up to either increase my collateral ratio or reduce my debt.
according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?
the problem is:
1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.
2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!
What are you talking about? You are settled at a fair face value. Besides, you can take advantage of low bitCNY price and close your position at discount value before you are forced settled. When bitCNY price goes up again, just short it again, it takes a couple of clicks. Where is unfairness?
if the feed price is correct, then there's no unfairness.
but now there's no way to buy BTS price at the feed price, otherwise the settlers will buy at feed price, not feed price +1%, understand?
listen, there is no low or high bitCNY price, bitCNY price are stable, there's only high or low BTS price, if I want to close my position, I need to sell 60M BTS, may be you want that, but I don't think the ecosystem like this.
I am considering how to make the ecosystem grow by optimizing the rules but what are you thinking? you guys can only tell others "stay calm, no problem, no need to change"
-
The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.
Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.
A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.
The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)
While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?
-
listen, there is no low or high bitCNY price, bitCNY price are stable, there's only high or low BTS price,
Wrong! It is bitCNY price which we want to peg to CNY, not BTS.
if I want to close my position, I need to sell 60M BTS, may be you want that, but I don't think the ecosystem like this.
I am considering how to make the ecosystem grow by optimizing the rules but what are you thinking? you guys can only tell others "stay calm, no problem, no need to change"
If you care so much about ecosystem, why don't you stop shorting assets which are oversupplied and go ahead and short those which desperately need more supply? Oversupply of money is as bad as undersupply.
-
The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.
Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.
A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.
The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)
While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?
HELLO THERE! BitCNY is falling below the feed because it is OVER SUPPLIED. This is very simple: there are more sellers than buyers. Forced settlement is the ONLY thing which keeps it from falling further. You want it to fall 50% below? Great, go ahead and set 50% offset and keep shorting, but let me know in advance when this happen such that I have time to get rid of this shit asset.
-
The price of BTS has been in place for two days already. Why, then, is the average median price of the witnesses not between the purchase and sale price? Perhaps there is an error in the submission of quotations from the witnesses?
And when the market moves down, the redemption price should be in the red zone, one it is still in green, maybe there is an external reason is that the settlement price is so understated?
Another question that we must ask ourselves is what do we want?
If we want more supply of the bitCNY, then we need to increase the remuneration to borrowers to a size greater than 1% when settlement, but why is it necessary to immediately 5%? If we talk about the regulation of the economy by central banks of different countries or the FED, they make soft decisions, you can make a reward of 1.5% or 2%. This will reduce interest from speculators and settlement will decrease.
-
As time goes，more and more Chinese exchanges need huge amount BitCNY，but nowadays continues BitCNY settlement makes BitCNY less and less which hurt BTS heavily，we must stop it！！！
-
You want it to fall 50% below? Great, go ahead and set 50% offset and keep shorting, but let me know in advance when this happen such that I have time to get rid of this shit asset.
No one is suggesting 50%
-
The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.
Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.
A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.
The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)
While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?
HELLO THERE! BitCNY is falling below the feed because it is OVER SUPPLIED. This is very simple: there are more sellers than buyers. Forced settlement is the ONLY thing which keeps it from falling further. You want it to fall 50% below? Great, go ahead and set 50% offset and keep shorting, but let me know in advance when this happen such that I have time to get rid of this shit asset.
ok, let's firstly focus on whether the bitCNY is over supplied.
below is snapshot from magicwallet, we can see that currently one need to pay at least 1.028CNY to get 1bitCNY, it is clearly that bitCNY is in shortage, serious shortage.
(http://i1.cfimg.com/523014/935bd826bf41c272.jpg)
anyway if you do not like bitCNY even if it worth more than 1CNY, just sell it immediatelly, it is very possible that the offset will increase 3 days later.
-
ok, let's firstly focus on whether the bitCNY is over supplied.
below is snapshot from magicwallet, we can see that currently one need to pay at least 1.028CNY to get 1bitCNY, it is clearly that bitCNY is in shortage, serious shortage.
It is in shortage in magicwallet, not on DEX. On DEX it is worth less than 1 CNY, which clearly indicates oversupply, and increasing supply even more will not make more bitCNY available in magicwallet, this will drop the price on DEX even more.
anyway if you do not like bitCNY even if it worth more than 1CNY, just sell it immediatelly, it is very possible that the offset will increase 3 days later.
It worth less than 1 CNY for me, not more, because I don't trade in magicwallet. But don't worry, I'll get rid of it, if it is going to be worth even less.
-
Pretty sure it will pass. Cny holders should be prepared for this impact.
A very sad day for bitshares in my opinion.
-
I like the training wheels analogy described by @Xeldal .
While I believe this issue should be addressed by the witnesses feeding a fairer price, apparently at this moment most of witnesses aren't doing the job well, as they have been failed to report for days. As I've said, we have 2 tools to affect/maintain the peg (adjusting price feed, or adjusting force settlement parameters), when one of them is hard to use, then it's good for us to try the other one.
Let's loose the training wheels a bit and see how the baby will grow. If she can not go by herself, we can always tighten the wheels again.
As a committee member, I've approved the proposal 1.10.5244: https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.5244
-
I am a big shorter, how can I scam the DEX users?
1. You sell bitCNY and promise that holders can settle their bitCNY for an equivalent amount of BTS within 24 hours.
2. After selling, you use your voting power to change the settlement offset, depriving bitCNY owners of 5% of their holdings.
But we've had that discussion before, and I guess neither one of us will change their position.
Instead we should try to find a fair solution.
The real problem is a disparity of markets. You are quoting an outside market (magicwallet), which pays more than 1 CNY for a bitCNY. On the DEX, we see (right now) a trading price of 1.76 BTS/bitCNY and a feed price of 1.84 BTS/CNY, from which we can calculate that on the DEX you can buy at .956 CNY/bitCNY.
In order to realign the markets, trading must occur.
For example, someone could buy cheap bitCNY on the DEX and sell it on magicwallet for a profit. Or (which is what shorters should be doing), buy cheap bitCNY on the DEX, and close their position with a profit while at the same time pushing the DEX price up towards the feed price.
Why is that not happening?
according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?
the problem is:
1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.
2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!
You don't have to buy BTS back, you can reduce your collateral as well as your debt.
listen, there is no low or high bitCNY price, bitCNY price are stable, there's only high or low BTS price,
That doesn't even make sense. Prices are always relative to something. The price of bitassets is expected to be unstable, because there is no fixed peg - it's a Market-Pegged Asset, and the market needs some space to move. The mechanism of MPAs encourages trading that moves the price towards the peg, that's how it works. This trading is currently not happening, which is at least partially responsible for both the market disparity and the current "speculators" who buy cheap and force-settle.
http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-financial-platform.pdf - section 2.
-
Changing rules like shoes in favor of small group of actors is shit. And the worst thing is that such stupid move is not going to solve any problems. This is like healing a headache with rectal suppositories. At the end, your head and your ass is going to hurt.
-
most of witnesses aren't doing the job well, as they have been failed to report for days.
Hm... what if all witnesses stop feeding a price for bitCNY until the markets are aligned correctly? That would prevent forced settlement for the time being.
-
The importance of force settlement is over rated. For an adopted market you could likely change it to 50% offset or remove it entirely and it would have no effect.
Force settlement is not a tool for speculators. It is not a tool for balancing or arbitrage. It is a safety, training wheels mechanism for if the market disappears, SmartAsset holders are assured of some value. Has the market disappeared? Is there suddenly a void on one side of the market and an overwhelming driving force on the other? Is everyone trying to exit the market at once? Is bitCNY in danger of collapse? No? ok, then why are we using force settlement? A market disruption and volatile pricing for BTS and BTC has made accurate objective feeding difficult/impossible. And instead of letting the markets and pricing to rebalance through normal trade we've given a new path straight through our core support.
A hard line in the sand so close to the feed during times of high volatility and market disruption drives speculators to attack the backbone supply for the market (borrowers) instead of an honest trade with other speculators in a normal market.
The price should be given some breathing room around the feed. Where normal market swings will be picked up from 1 speculator to the other. Not allowing speculators and other normal trading to pick up the slack first to balance and correct, where instead there is a governing fail-safe emergency mechanism for a guaranteed price, drives instead a drain on the core of the market (borrowers)
While I see settlement as useful in the formation of a new market, at some point it becomes destructive and an unnecessary burden for the creators / borrowers. This balance should be managed and assessed. Is bCNY able to stand on it's own? Can we allow it 5% around the feed without it falling over?
HELLO THERE! BitCNY is falling below the feed because it is OVER SUPPLIED. This is very simple: there are more sellers than buyers. Forced settlement is the ONLY thing which keeps it from falling further. You want it to fall 50% below? Great, go ahead and set 50% offset and keep shorting, but let me know in advance when this happen such that I have time to get rid of this shit asset.
ok, let's firstly focus on whether the bitCNY is over supplied.
below is snapshot from magicwallet, we can see that currently one need to pay at least 1.028CNY to get 1bitCNY, it is clearly that bitCNY is in shortage, serious shortage.
(http://i1.cfimg.com/523014/935bd826bf41c272.jpg)
anyway if you do not like bitCNY even if it worth more than 1CNY, just sell it immediatelly, it is very possible that the offset will increase 3 days later.
This is the deposit page which shows the prices that people want to sell bitCNY for fiat (ask price). The withdrawal page makes more sense as it shows the price that people want to pay with fiat for bitCNY (bid price). As of writing, withdrawal fee rates provided by big providers are around -1%, which means people are willing to pay 1.01 fiat CNY for 1 bitCNY.
The real problem is a disparity of markets. You are quoting an outside market (magicwallet), which pays more than 1 CNY for a bitCNY. On the DEX, we see (right now) a trading price of 1.76 BTS/bitCNY and a feed price of 1.84 BTS/CNY, from which we can calculate that on the DEX you can buy at .956 CNY/bitCNY.
Other people are not calculating this way.
While you can buy bitCNY with BTS in the DEX with a "better" price, it's inconvenient to convert bitCNY to same or more BTS via other routes to make a profit, so there are opportunity costs involved, people tend to not do that in a up trend.
Magic Wallet(website https://www.magicw.net/, web wallet https://m.magicw.net/) provides a decentralized on/off ramp for bitCNY : fiat CNY, which is now widely used among the Chinese BitShares community. Everyone with an amount of bitCNY can list bitCNY for sale for fiat CNY, and vise versa. They set fee rates by themselves. the Magic Wallet operating team serves as an escrow, currently without escrow fee. So, Magic Wallet is a free market place, offers listed there are showing real market price, people are playing with real money, IMHO it can be used as a feed source, witnesses can adjust price feeds based on it, actually it should have more weight since it's a direct market (of course need to make sure it's not manipulated). The fact is, people are bidding with 1.01 bitCNY per fiat CNY, and bidding with 0.58 bitCNY per BTS, it's fair to say one BTS worths 0.5858 CNY, so the feed price 0.55 CNY per BTS is obviously off.
In order to realign the markets, trading must occur.
For example, someone could buy cheap bitCNY on the DEX and sell it on magicwallet for a profit. Or (which is what shorters should be doing), buy cheap bitCNY on the DEX, and close their position with a profit while at the same time pushing the DEX price up towards the feed price.
Why is that not happening?
according to your logic, now I should sell BTS in DEX to lower the price as feeded?
the problem is:
1. after I doing this, I have no way to buy BTS back at the feeded price, I am at risk if the BTS price goes up.
2. as a big shorter it's not easy to avoid being settlement by reducing debt, even I avoid, some other shorters will be settled, as committee we need to find a solution to make sure any shorters won't be settled unfairly!
You don't have to buy BTS back, you can reduce your collateral as well as your debt.
listen, there is no low or high bitCNY price, bitCNY price are stable, there's only high or low BTS price,
That doesn't even make sense. Prices are always relative to something. The price of bitassets is expected to be unstable, because there is no fixed peg - it's a Market-Pegged Asset, and the market needs some space to move. The mechanism of MPAs encourages trading that moves the price towards the peg, that's how it works. This trading is currently not happening, which is at least partially responsible for both the market disparity and the current "speculators" who buy cheap and force-settle.
http://docs.bitshares.eu/_downloads/bitshares-financial-platform.pdf - section 2.
Your argument about "peg" assumes that the feed price is correct, but it doesn't make sense when it's not.
-
Hi guys -
New to bitshares but really like it and have been investing for the last month or so. For what it's worth, I don't think the problem is framed correctly:
1) The fairness in the system should go both ways: for those wanting to buy any of the "Bit" assets and the sellers.
2) Not fully familiar with the process of calculating the "settlement price" but it doesn't look to me that the current methodology addresses the issue that bitcrab is raising: technical or fundamental issues in a market will impact a particular financial instrument and current rules become unworkable for the system.
3) What the price feed methodology is trying to find is the right (fair) price. One of my responsibilities in my job is to oversee some FX trading activity and we never find ourselves getting quotes in real time from banks that match perfectly...particularly in volatile markets.
4) Given that, we will always have discrepancies in those feeds and the settlement price methodology can only do so much to reflect the "market price" (which is a moving target and will differ from one area to another, or market to another).
I am sure someone mentioned this idea before but why don't we include an adjustment to the average of the feeds that incorporate volatility of the market? if we calculate standard deviation from current feed prices for CNY, it will be
Average 1.796894286
STDEV 0.050622697
STDEV % of Mean: 2.817%
As a comparison, using the same methodology to BitUSD:
11.83008333
0.194776492
1.646%
Some version of this will reflect dynamically the state of a particular financial instrument without having someone "define" what that % is. It only recognizes that the fair price will fall within a band given we are just taking a snapshot from a relative small sample.
-
Magicwallet is one particular market for bitCNY, which is biased different way than the DEX. Trying to solve its problems by messing up with whole echosystem is wrong. The fact that magicwallet users pay more CNY for bitCNY means that more users deposit funds into bitshares than withdraw through your wallet. You can't change this by messing up with offset. To bring the bitCNY price on par with CNY in your wallet, you need somebody to withdraw their funds through magicwallet, then deposit them back through other gateway. This is the arbitrage problem, not the shorting problem.
-
The fact that magicwallet users pay more CNY for bitCNY means that more users deposit funds into bitshares than withdraw through your wallet.
To bring the bitCNY price on par with CNY in your wallet, you need somebody to withdraw their funds through magicwallet, then deposit them back through other gateway.
Looks like you're saying "the market is acting wrong". That's a bit funny. IMHO the market won't lie. The fact is at this moment (this is important because we've seen opposite fee rates when BTS price is higher) you can't find people who willing to sell you bitCNY for less fiat CNY, you simply unable to "deposit them back". That's free market. Magic wallet is just a tool to make it more convenient to trade. There are also other gateways, for example https://hellobts.com/ and https://bit.btsabc.org/ and OTC markets, but the price/fee rate is similar.
-
Get the witnesses to adjust their price feeds 5% lower.
witnesses should be able to react, they get paid $50k a week to do this.
i will not support 5% force settle offset when its a simple case of witnesses not providing the correct feed.
Maybe you didn’t see 2 crazy witnesses set the feeding price at astonishing 0.5089 CNY while price at poloniex is 0.54 CNY at the same time.For the whole time ,they gave much lower feeding price than poloniex .
I strongly recommend you a coin price app tool aicoin(website ：aicoin.com，not acoin.io ) to you.
BTSs in Poloniex are ‘fake' because they cannot circulate in the market.A worse news is that the BTS transaction volume of Poloniex consists of more than 70% of the market.The old feeding price mechanism cannot represent the price of true circulating BTSs.But this situation is not admited or found by all the witnesses.The gap between BTS feeding price and price of wallet BTS exchanges&BTS circulation exchanges such as zb.com is too big now.Things should be changed.
This scenario is not new. Since Feb. 9 to late May,Chinese major exchanges were forced by the gov. to forbid withdrawing bitcoins,which caused the price in these Chinese exchanges much lower than non-Chinese exchanges.As a result,the proportion of Chinese exchange bitcoin price was removed from some BTC price index. You can see here https://tradeblock.com/blog/xbx-index-update-removing-okcoin (https://tradeblock.com/blog/xbx-index-update-removing-okcoin)
In short,we should admit that the feeding price should be more close to wallet exchanges or exchanges that BTSs can be withrawed,and BTSs in poloniex are 'fake'.The proportion of feeding price of poloniex should be removed or at least not at major postion .It is not consensus maybe because some witnesses want to manipulate price.or they don’t see it.
-
The fact that magicwallet users pay more CNY for bitCNY means that more users deposit funds into bitshares than withdraw through your wallet.
To bring the bitCNY price on par with CNY in your wallet, you need somebody to withdraw their funds through magicwallet, then deposit them back through other gateway.
Looks like you're saying "the market is acting wrong".
No, this is exactly how the market is supposed to work. If you have a mismatch between the deposit volume and withdrawal volume at your gateway, the price get skewed. You need arbitragers to correct it. Total supply of bitCNY has nothing to do with this, you can buy plenty at discount on DEX, it is your gateway which has deficit.
-
So, situation is even worse than it follows from OP. It turns out that topic starter runs a gateway which is not very efficient, and tries to solve his problem at a cost of bitCNY holders.
-
The fact that magicwallet users pay more CNY for bitCNY means that more users deposit funds into bitshares than withdraw through your wallet.
To bring the bitCNY price on par with CNY in your wallet, you need somebody to withdraw their funds through magicwallet, then deposit them back through other gateway.
Looks like you're saying "the market is acting wrong".
No, this is exactly how the market is supposed to work. If you have a mismatch between the deposit volume and withdrawal volume at your gateway, the price get skewed. You need arbitragers to correct it. Total supply of bitCNY has nothing to do with this, you can buy plenty at discount on DEX, it is your gateway which has deficit.
"you can buy plenty at discount on DEX" but only with BTS, you don't have that much BTS and nowhere to get that much with fiat (and even BTC). The on/off ramp is designed for the peg, where you can buy bitCNY with fiat CNY.
-
The fact that magicwallet users pay more CNY for bitCNY means that more users deposit funds into bitshares than withdraw through your wallet.
To bring the bitCNY price on par with CNY in your wallet, you need somebody to withdraw their funds through magicwallet, then deposit them back through other gateway.
Looks like you're saying "the market is acting wrong".
No, this is exactly how the market is supposed to work. If you have a mismatch between the deposit volume and withdrawal volume at your gateway, the price get skewed. You need arbitragers to correct it. Total supply of bitCNY has nothing to do with this, you can buy plenty at discount on DEX, it is your gateway which has deficit.
"you can buy plenty at discount on DEX" but only with BTS, you don't have that much BTS and nowhere to get that much with fiat (and even BTC). The on/off ramp is designed for the peg, where you can buy bitCNY with fiat CNY.
So what? To short bitCNY you need even more BTS than to buy it. How is messing up offset supposed to fix the peg at your ramp? This is ridiculous misthinking.
-
So, situation is even worse than it follows from OP. It turns out that topic starter runs a gateway which is not very efficient, and tries to solve his problem at a cost of bitCNY holders.
Magic wallet is not just a gateway running by someone, it's a free market like the Dex. Everyone can offer to exchange fiat CNY with bitCNY and vice versa with Magic Wallet (the software). Traders compete with each other. If one trader's price is not fair, people will go with others. It should be the most efficient. If it become inefficient, it means the pegging mechanism is flawed.
The fact that magicwallet users pay more CNY for bitCNY means that more users deposit funds into bitshares than withdraw through your wallet.
To bring the bitCNY price on par with CNY in your wallet, you need somebody to withdraw their funds through magicwallet, then deposit them back through other gateway.
Looks like you're saying "the market is acting wrong".
No, this is exactly how the market is supposed to work. If you have a mismatch between the deposit volume and withdrawal volume at your gateway, the price get skewed. You need arbitragers to correct it. Total supply of bitCNY has nothing to do with this, you can buy plenty at discount on DEX, it is your gateway which has deficit.
"you can buy plenty at discount on DEX" but only with BTS, you don't have that much BTS and nowhere to get that much with fiat (and even BTC). The on/off ramp is designed for the peg, where you can buy bitCNY with fiat CNY.
So what? To short bitCNY you need even more BTS than to buy it. How is messing up offset supposed to fix the peg at your ramp? This is ridiculous misthinking.
I don't know why you keep saying it's "my ramp" or someone's ramp. It's actually a decentralized p2p ramp.
A successfully pegged bitCNY means everyone can exchange fiat CNY with bitCNY at around 1:1 and vise versa with anyone else without need to worry about profit or loss. Ideally for a ramp the exchange price should be more than 1:1 on one direction but less than 1:1 on the other direction. Currently both directions are operating above 1:1 (Note: in a free market but not a simple ramp that the owner sets arbitrary fee rate), which means the peg is slightly off, which means the feed price is wrong, which means bitCNY holders are now taking advantage of bitCNY producers (shorters), which is unfair. To get mass adoption, we need to eliminate this unfairness, either by correcting the price feed, or by adjusting the force settlement offset.
-
The peg at your ramp (or whoever runs it) is off because deposit and withdrawal volumes are different. This has nothing to do with price feed or fairness. And anyway, you should not address the problems of your ramp by screwing up a committee token. Issue your own token and do whatever you want with it.
-
The peg at your ramp (or whoever runs it) is off because deposit and withdrawal volumes are different. This has nothing to do with price feed or fairness. And anyway, you should not address the problems of your ramp by screwing up a committee token. Issue your own token and do whatever you want with it.
This is an even deeper issue.
Deposit and withdrawal volumes are different (actually at this moment more people want to deposit with fiat but less want to withdraw), means there are more demands than supply, in order to maintain the peg we should provide more supply, so it's fair to bias to shorters.
-
The peg at your ramp (or whoever runs it) is off because deposit and withdrawal volumes are different. This has nothing to do with price feed or fairness. And anyway, you should not address the problems of your ramp by screwing up a committee token. Issue your own token and do whatever you want with it.
This is an even deeper issue.
Deposit and withdrawal volumes are different (actually at this moment more people want to deposit with fiat but less want to withdraw), means there are more demands than supply, in order to maintain the peg we should provide more supply, so it's fair to bias to shorters.
There is enough of supply of bitCNY, you can buy it at discount rate at DEX. The problem with your ramp is that it has a broken arbitrage loop, you should close it.
What are you trying to do instead is making the peg closer at one market by breaking it worse at another market.
-
The peg at your ramp (or whoever runs it) is off because deposit and withdrawal volumes are different. This has nothing to do with price feed or fairness. And anyway, you should not address the problems of your ramp by screwing up a committee token. Issue your own token and do whatever you want with it.
This is an even deeper issue.
Deposit and withdrawal volumes are different (actually at this moment more people want to deposit with fiat but less want to withdraw), means there are more demands than supply, in order to maintain the peg we should provide more supply, so it's fair to bias to shorters.
There is enough of supply of bitCNY, you can buy it at discount rate at DEX. The problem with your ramp is that it has a broken loop, you should close it.
What are you trying to do instead is making the peg closer at one market by breaking it worse at another market.
Fiat ramps are important to get mass adoption. I'm shocked that you think it should be closed. Without mass adoption, bitAssets are only toys. Without mass adoption, BTS won't worth much.
Actually the feed issue has nothing to do with the ramps. I'd admit some of my previous arguments are focused on the wrong way. 1% premium is not big a deal.
The certainty to be able to buy cheap bitCNY directly from the Dex (at market price) then settle the bought bitCNY for more BTS via force settlement (at feed price) is just wrong, which means the price feed provided by witnesses is incorrect, is away from the market price. Even if the ramp is closed, the price feed issue is still there. This issue has been with us for quite some days, it's serious so need to be addressed.
-
The peg at your ramp (or whoever runs it) is off because deposit and withdrawal volumes are different. This has nothing to do with price feed or fairness. And anyway, you should not address the problems of your ramp by screwing up a committee token. Issue your own token and do whatever you want with it.
This is an even deeper issue.
Deposit and withdrawal volumes are different (actually at this moment more people want to deposit with fiat but less want to withdraw), means there are more demands than supply, in order to maintain the peg we should provide more supply, so it's fair to bias to shorters.
There is enough of supply of bitCNY, you can buy it at discount rate at DEX. The problem with your ramp is that it has a broken loop, you should close it.
What are you trying to do instead is making the peg closer at one market by breaking it worse at another market.
Fiat ramps are important to get mass adoption. I'm shocked that you think it should be closed.
Dude, can you read english words? I am talking about closing the broken arbitrage loop, not about closing your ramp. I know how important are fiat ramps.
-
By the way, I can't try you magicwallet because I can't read Chinese, but I feel that this is an awesome project. The problem which you have with peg offset is natural, because you will always have disbalance between deposits/withdrawals, you just need to think out the best solution for it without rush. Do it right and you'll be the kings.
-
Argument is good, but please focuse the problem, the BTS in Poloniex was a "Stand-alone game" now, BTS can't Deposit and Withdraw for days, the feed price from the Poloniex has no any reference value.
So, we have four solutions:
1. Contact with the Poloniex to open Deposit and Withdraw BTS asap;
2. Kick out the Poloniex from the feed price asap;
3. Raise the bitCNY force settlement offset to 5% for now;
4. Do nothing on the sidelines, seeing the BTS to die slowly.
Which you can do? to do it now.
-
Argument is good, but please focuse the problem, the BTS in Poloniex was a "Stand-alone game" now, BTS can't Deposit and Withdraw for days, the feed price from the Poloniex has no any reference value.
So, we have four solutions:
1. Cotanct with the Poloniex to open Deposit and Withdraw BTS asap;
2. Kick out the Poloniex from the feed price asap;
3. Raise the bitCNY force settlement offset to 5% for now;
4. Do nothing on the sidelines, seeing the BTS to die slowly.
Which you can do? to do it now.
only reasonable solution is asking witnesses to fix their feeds. that's what they get paid for
-
Argument is good, but please focuse the problem, the BTS in Poloniex was a "Stand-alone game" now, BTS can't Deposit and Withdraw for days, the feed price from the Poloniex has no any reference value.
So, we have four solutions:
1. Cotanct with the Poloniex to open Deposit and Withdraw BTS asap;
2. Kick out the Poloniex from the feed price asap;
3. Raise the bitCNY force settlement offset to 5% for now;
4. Do nothing on the sidelines, seeing the BTS to die slowly.
Which you can do? to do it now.
only reasonable solution is asking witnesses to fix their feeds. that's what they get paid for
So, now we need to know how? when? who to do this?
how to make sure all the witnesses fix their feeds? :( :( :(
-
Argument is good, but please focuse the problem, the BTS in Poloniex was a "Stand-alone game" now, BTS can't Deposit and Withdraw for days, the feed price from the Poloniex has no any reference value.
So, we have four solutions:
1. Cotanct with the Poloniex to open Deposit and Withdraw BTS asap;
2. Kick out the Poloniex from the feed price asap;
3. Raise the bitCNY force settlement offset to 5% for now;
4. Do nothing on the sidelines, seeing the BTS to die slowly.
Which you can do? to do it now.
only reasonable solution is asking witnesses to fix their feeds. that's what they get paid for
please read my post on 38# to see if witnesses can do it.It's profitable by harming the CNY market through setting low feeding prices .We should admit that the Poloniex price is not real market demand price(I call BTSs which can be circulated are True BTSs and polo's BTSs are fake BTSs).The scene is much alike some institutions removed Okcoin's BTC price in the BTC index when the CN gov. forced okcoin to forbidden the withdraw of BTCs.
-
Congratulation！ +5%
-
Argument is good, but please focuse the problem, the BTS in Poloniex was a "Stand-alone game" now, BTS can't Deposit and Withdraw for days, the feed price from the Poloniex has no any reference value.
So, we have four solutions:
1. Cotanct with the Poloniex to open Deposit and Withdraw BTS asap;
2. Kick out the Poloniex from the feed price asap;
3. Raise the bitCNY force settlement offset to 5% for now;
4. Do nothing on the sidelines, seeing the BTS to die slowly.
Which you can do? to do it now.
only reasonable solution is asking witnesses to fix their feeds. that's what they get paid for
please read my post on 38# to see if witnesses can do it.It's profitable by harming the CNY market through setting low feeding prices .We should admit that the Poloniex price is not real market demand price(I call BTSs which can be circulated are True BTSs and polo's BTSs are fake BTSs).The scene is much alike some institutions removed Okcoin's BTC price in the BTC index when the CN gov. forced okcoin to forbidden the withdraw of BTCs.
Yes, we need someone to do these, but no one do, only argument, not give a solution. This is not good for bts.
we need talk, think , solve these problems, make the BTS more strong, more powerful, more more influential in the world.
BM have left BTS, but the soul of the bts can't vanish.
We need to read again what BM said:" WHAT BTS IS?"
-
I am curious how witnesses get their feeds... The only centralized exchange trading bts is poloniex and AEX.
Normally the feed should be according to the weighted volume of each exchange including the internal DEX trading. I hope you do this.
Now that Poloniex has issues with bts withdrawals and deposits I believe feed SHOULD NOT take into account at all the price from Poloniex until the issue is resolved. If you guys take feeds from Polo now then this is extremely dangerous!!!
I can not comment on AEX yet..
Feed should be endogenous and not exogenous now until polo fix its problems and should be based from the internal DEX trading imho..
In regards to this proposal I have not decided if it should have been approved but my initial thought says that force settlement should not have been raised by 5% and instead the feed should have been adjusted accordingly..
Finally, does anyone has an update of what is the status with Polo and when the issue is expected to be resolved?
-
I am curious how witnesses get their feeds... The only centralized exchange trading bts is poloniex and AEX.
Normally the feed should be according to the weighted volume of each exchange including the internal DEX trading. I hope you do this.
Now that Poloniex has issues with bts withdrawals and deposits I believe feed SHOULD NOT take into account at all the price from Poloniex until the issue is resolved. If you guys take feeds from Polo now then this is extremely dangerous!!!
I can not comment on AEX yet..
Feed should be endogenous and not exogenous now until polo fix its problems and should be based from the internal DEX trading imho..
In regards to this proposal I have not decided if it should have been approved but my initial thought says that force settlement should not have been raised by 5% and instead the feed should have been adjusted accordingly..
Finally, does anyone has an update of what is the status with Polo and when the issue is expected to be resolved?
5% is only for BITCNY, and a temporary expedient.
Some problems maybe solved in one week, one month or one year, no one knows.
There have an opportunity for BTS in China, we must catch the opportunity in the hand asap,
but the internal DEX (BITCNY) was harming by the wrong feed price(Poloniex), we must do somthing to stop this situation, not only for BITCNY, but for the BTS.
In the future, i belive we will find a better way to solve this problem.
-
It's really not easy to always find a "correct" price.
While Poloniex disabled BTS deposit/withdrawal, it still has the biggest trading volume. I guess many traders there just don't care about deposit/withdrawal. Other exchanges which have listed BTS, except the DEX it self, are either unable to get data or has too low influence:
* AEX.com: witnesses were are able to fetch price data. However, earlier today aex.com added a javascript redirection to it's API, now even coinmarketcap.com is unable to fetch price from it, I guess witnesses are unable to get their data as well (at least I am). Due to the unstable API, it's not guaranteed that we can always get the data.
* EXX.com: no public API to get price data so far. Low volume.
* LBANK.info: the API works, but the market depth is very thin, volume is apparently manipulated.
* Bitcoin Indonesia (bitcoin.co.id): low volume.
* Livecoin.net: low volume.
In the meanwhile, as of writing, BTC price trading in BTS:OPEN.BTC pair is even lower than Poloniex.
Markets with low volume or low depth are easier to be manipulated.
//Update: I forgot zb.com. will update about the status soon.
//Update 2: API of zb.com is working, their have BTS/USDT and BTS/BTC markets, as of writing the USDT market has better volume. However, I heard it's unable to withdraw USDT right now, so the price is not as reliable as well.
//Update 3:
coinegg.com: is live and the API is working, but volume is low.
xbrick.io: looks like the markets are not live yet.
//Update 4: aex API seems recovered.
//Update 5: another exchange, big.one, low volume
-
I am curious how witnesses get their feeds... The only centralized exchange trading bts is poloniex and AEX.
Normally the feed should be according to the weighted volume of each exchange including the internal DEX trading. I hope you do this.
Now that Poloniex has issues with bts withdrawals and deposits I believe feed SHOULD NOT take into account at all the price from Poloniex until the issue is resolved. If you guys take feeds from Polo now then this is extremely dangerous!!!
I can not comment on AEX yet..
Feed should be endogenous and not exogenous now until polo fix its problems and should be based from the internal DEX trading imho..
In regards to this proposal I have not decided if it should have been approved but my initial thought says that force settlement should not have been raised by 5% and instead the feed should have been adjusted accordingly..
Finally, does anyone has an update of what is the status with Polo and when the issue is expected to be resolved?
Not only aex,but also zb.com,it's former Chbtc.com.Zb.com is leading all the market in BTS price because it keeps RMB deposit channel in a delicate way.There are also some small exchanges like coinegg.com(former jubi.com) and xbrick.io (former 19800.com) which have a place to trade BTSs.
-
I am curious how witnesses get their feeds... The only centralized exchange trading bts is poloniex and AEX.
Normally the feed should be according to the weighted volume of each exchange including the internal DEX trading. I hope you do this.
Now that Poloniex has issues with bts withdrawals and deposits I believe feed SHOULD NOT take into account at all the price from Poloniex until the issue is resolved. If you guys take feeds from Polo now then this is extremely dangerous!!!
I can not comment on AEX yet..
Feed should be endogenous and not exogenous now until polo fix its problems and should be based from the internal DEX trading imho..
In regards to this proposal I have not decided if it should have been approved but my initial thought says that force settlement should not have been raised by 5% and instead the feed should have been adjusted accordingly..
Finally, does anyone has an update of what is the status with Polo and when the issue is expected to be resolved?
Not only aex,but also zb.com,it's former Chbtc.com.Zb.com is leading all the market in BTS price because it keeps RMB deposit channel in a delicate way.There are also some small exchanges like coinegg.com(former jubi.com) and xbrick.io (former 19800.com) which have a place to trade BTSs.
Thanks.
coinegg seems working and has API, but the trading volume is low right now.
xbrick hasn't started trading?
-
Hopefully we can be kept updated here on how this change pans out.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I think our bitCNY problem is caused by people in China moving from CNY into (other) cryptos, using bitCNY and BTS as intermediates. I. e. CNY -> (via magicwallet) -> bitCNY -> (via forced settlement) -> BTS -> BTC (or other cryptos).
That would explain why CNY:bitCNY is trading above the peg, while at the same time BTS:bitCNY is trading below - if there was real demand for bitCNY, people would buy it on the DEX. In reality, people are dumping bitCNY for BTS either on the DEX or via forced settlement.
I think changing the settlement offset will not change this situation - it would only continue on a different level. (It seems the proposal has been accepted by now - we will see if it helps.)
BTS has been in an uptrend during the past couple of days. It is normal that during a BTS uptrend bitassets trade below the peg, because the settlement delay means that the bitasset is actually pegged to the expected price one day in the future.
Some people are arguing that the price feed is off, because the indirect price CNY->bitCNY->BTS doesn't match the feed price. I think that argument is invalid because of the abovementioned dependency between the bitCNY->BTS price as seen on the DEX and the feed price. The feed price must not be calculated as a function of the internal trade price, because that would create a feedback loop, and feedback loops are inherently unstable.
-
I think our bitCNY problem is caused by people in China moving from CNY into (other) cryptos, using bitCNY and BTS as intermediates. I. e. CNY -> (via magicwallet) -> bitCNY -> (via forced settlement) -> BTS -> BTC (or other cryptos).
That would explain why CNY:bitCNY is trading above the peg, while at the same time BTS:bitCNY is trading below - if there was real demand for bitCNY, people would buy it on the DEX. In reality, people are dumping bitCNY for BTS either on the DEX or via forced settlement.
I think changing the settlement offset will not change this situation - it would only continue on a different level. (It seems the proposal has been accepted by now - we will see if it helps.)
BTS has been in an uptrend during the past couple of days. It is normal that during a BTS uptrend bitassets trade below the peg, because the settlement delay means that the bitasset is actually pegged to the expected price one day in the future.
Some people are arguing that the price feed is off, because the indirect price CNY->bitCNY->BTS doesn't match the feed price. I think that argument is invalid because of the abovementioned dependency between the bitCNY->BTS price as seen on the DEX and the feed price. The feed price must not be calculated as a function of the internal trade price, because that would create a feedback loop, and feedback loops are inherently unstable.
I've thought of this as a possible factor. That said, some people are using BTS as an indirect fiat ramp. They buy BTS with fiat in the Dex, then dump BTS for BTC or other crypto currencies in other exchanges. Since Poloniex disabled BTS withdrawal, people who bought cheap BTS there can not sell in Dex for a profit, the arbitrage loop now is not closed. That's why there is disparity.
-
I think our bitCNY problem is caused by people in China moving from CNY into (other) cryptos, using bitCNY and BTS as intermediates. I. e. CNY -> (via magicwallet) -> bitCNY -> (via forced settlement) -> BTS -> BTC (or other cryptos).
Exactly, this is pretty evident. They need market makers to create a flow of money in opposite direction to fix this problem.
-
I think our bitCNY problem is caused by people in China moving from CNY into (other) cryptos, using bitCNY and BTS as intermediates. I. e. CNY -> (via magicwallet) -> bitCNY -> (via forced settlement) -> BTS -> BTC (or other cryptos).
Exactly, this is pretty evident. They need market makers to create a flow of money in opposite direction to fix this problem.
you always avoid to mention the wrong feed price from poloniex, just want the market makers to do something, i dont know why?!
What BTS is?!
ls there anything wrong people moving CNY into other cryptos and use BITCNY and BTS as intermediates?
People chose the market, not the market chose people.
The force settlement make the market to balance, but the wrong feed price make the force settlement to the wrong direction, do you think how much time needed to fix the wrong feed price?! do you have the timeline? one day,one week,one month or one year?
Do you think the malicious force settlement is good for the market?! the wrong feed price not need to be fixed?
or you think the market wiill fix the problem itself?
Economic liberalism need a fair market, not a malicious market.
When the Satan come, we cant just say "GOD,HELP ME,GOD WILL SAVE US!", we need help ourself.
Do somthing, not just talk.
Maybe 5% is not the best idea, but some problems must fix now, not wait somebody to fix it at a long long long time, or wait the BTS DEX dieing slowly!
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Jv7kY4H.png)
what a strange coincidence, isn't it
-
(https://i.imgur.com/Jv7kY4H.png)
what a strange coincidence, isn't it
We want to know who and when to fix the wrong feed price, how to solove the poloniex problem?!
It seems no one care these problems and care other things?! what a strange thing, isn't it? FORUM ADMINISTRATOR?! Which line do you stand?!
-
@fav I don't understand why you attack @bitcrab... You do realize that the guy has millions of bitshares in collateral and helps creating millions in bitassets right? I mean no matter what is the price of bts he stills holds the collateral even if he gets margin called when the bts was falling..Now he is creating GDEX and you see this as something bad?? Give him a break..
Secondly I would really like to know also what is happening with Polo and even if many people are asking what is happening no one answers.. This is much more important than raising by 5% the bitcny force settlement. If raising the bitcny force settlement doesn't work, we can and will change it back to where it was. If polo delists bts like bittrex did there will be no recovery of the price after that...
Seriously...Can we concentrate on important issues? Where are these bitshares spokespersons now??What are they doing??
-
Seriously...Can we concentrate on important issues? Where are these bitshares spokespersons now??What are they doing??
-
only reasonable solution is asking witnesses to fix their feeds. that's what they get paid for
that was the first step taken as you should know, and the reasons why it was not enough were discussed in depth.
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality)
-
Seriously...Can we concentrate on important issues? Where are these bitshares spokespersons now??What are they doing??
Read the spokesperson proposal to understand what the spokesperson is there for ...
It will *NOT* make or lead political decisions within the blockchain ... that's up to the shareholders to do
-
Seriously...Can we concentrate on important issues? Where are these bitshares spokespersons now??What are they doing??
Read the spokesperson proposal to understand what the spokesperson is there for ...
It will *NOT* make or lead political decisions within the blockchain ... that's up to the shareholders to do
So, for protecting shareholders' interests, who will discuss with Poloniex?! Committee members or someone?
-
So, for protecting shareholders' interests, who will discuss with Poloniex?! Committee members or someone?
The 5% debate: Not going to be discusses by the spokesperson
The Poloniex issue: Going to be descissed by the spokesperson - BBF has reached out to poloniex, but hasn't heard back from them
-
So, for protecting shareholders' interests, who will discuss with Poloniex?! Committee members or someone?
The 5% debate: Not going to be discusses by the spokesperson
The Poloniex issue: Going to be descissed by the spokesperson - BBF has reached out to poloniex, but hasn't heard back from them
Glad to hear these news.
-
Seriously...Can we concentrate on important issues? Where are these bitshares spokespersons now??What are they doing??
Read the spokesperson proposal to understand what the spokesperson is there for ...
It will *NOT* make or lead political decisions within the blockchain ... that's up to the shareholders to do
@xeroc obviously I don't expect any spokeperson to decide about the 5% debate but I was referring for someone to be in touch with Poloniex issue.
So, for protecting shareholders' interests, who will discuss with Poloniex?! Committee members or someone?
The 5% debate: Not going to be discusses by the spokesperson
The Poloniex issue: Going to be descissed by the spokesperson - BBF has reached out to poloniex, but hasn't heard back from them
Glad to hear these news.
good news indeed. Please keep us updated.
-
only reasonable solution is asking witnesses to fix their feeds. that's what they get paid for
that was the first step taken as you should know, and the reasons why it was not enough were discussed in depth.
I'll just leave this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_triviality)
Hahaha nice one never heard of before. Thanks
-
It looks like increase in Force settlement offset to 5% in BITCNY/BTS pair has been working as intended.
Good call bitcrab
-
It looks like increase in Force settlement offset to 5% in BITCNY/BTS pair has been working as intended.
Good call bitcrab
congrats on creating a market nonpegged asset
-
congrats on creating a market nonpegged asset
It is still pegged by the way, but to different price, this should be mentioned throughout bitshares publications. When those Chinese, who deposit funds via bitCNY, will realize that they can't exchange them for other tokens at fair price, they'll be very happy.
-
@xeroc obviously I don't expect any spokeperson to decide about the 5% debate but I was referring for someone to be in touch with Poloniex issue.
good news indeed. Please keep us updated.
My fault. Lost track of what was actually discussed :-/
-
The GUI still shows that settlement price is the same as the feed price. This is confusing. How should I read this?
-
What is the latest feedback on this? Positive, negative, no impact? This was an important experiment as I believe all BitAssets should have the same parameters. New traders will expect this and may become frustrated not knowing BitAssets all have different settlement parameters.
-
What is the latest feedback on this? Positive, negative, no impact? This was an important experiment as I believe all BitAssets should have the same parameters. New traders will expect this and may become frustrated not knowing BitAssets all have different settlement parameters.
I would like to know as well. So far fav doesn't like it :)
but much more bitCNY was created which is good.
So I guess it would be nice to hear from bitcrab
-
The obvious solution to prevent market manipulation is a small fee on all official Smartcoins. I would suggest 1.5-2% for smaller liquidity coins, and as low as 0.5% on very liquid, fiat-based smartcoins. 5% is too high though..
-
the key point is the price feeding.
up to now we can still see that the settlement price is always 3-5% lower than latest price.
(http://i1.cfimg.com/523014/d6d0e98e7696b644.jpg)
this does not happen in bitUSD/BTS market.
from Magicwallet data we can know that bitCNY peg CNY well, bitCNY is not cheaper than CNY.
so the problem is still in price feeding, the force settlement offset can be reduced only when the fed price can trace the market price well enough.
-
Is there any fee for creating or unwinding a BitCNY margin position? Or are fees ONLY for settlement offset?
If so, why don't we have a small fee for unwinding one, to reduce the opportunity for manipulation? No more than executing a forex trade - 1% or so (about the round trip cost on Forex), maybe a little more for now to encourage certain things, as we're doing with the 5% for BitCNY to prevent removing smartcoins and manipulation (although this fee is extremely high, I understand the temporary need. In the end I envision maybe something like 0.5% for unwinding a margin position, and 1% for force settlement as fair and the funds go back to the BTS ecosystem anyway...)
-
A further comment on this: I only think a fee makes sense for unwinding a BTS short / Smartcoin margin position for the instant settlement. 24 hour delay (like there is for Force Settle) could be an even smaller or non-existent fee. I also think perhaps a longer timeframe option for the two could be offered with less/no fee, such as 3 or 7 days for force settle (in this case to avoid the equivalent of the larger 5% fee).
-
I suggest to design a floating Force settlement offset, and establish a max and min Force settlement offset to protect the Force settlement person.
This can protect the debtor which have the high collateral ratio and reduce the debor which have the low collateral ratio.
Assumption the collateral ratio above 175%, Force settlement offset max 5% . floating rate=0
Assumption arithmetic 1:
Force settlement offset=collateral ratio- maintenance collateral ratio+floating rate
IF the debtor wants to get the max Force settlement offset 5%, he need to keep his collateral ratio above 180%.
Assumption arithmetic 2：
Force settlement offset=[collateral ratio - maintenance collateral ratio]/2+floating rate
IF the debtor wants to get the max Force settlement offset 5%, he need to keep his collateral ratio above 185%.
Assumption arithmetic 3：
Force settlement offset={[collateral ratio+maintenance collateral ratio ]/2- maintenance collateral ratio}/2+floating rate
IF the debtor want get the max Force settlement offset 5%, he need to keep his collateral ratio above 195%.
(http://img1.ph.126.net/FA-m9WTgwFcYG8qXyBe2nQ==/6597857016984230746.png)
Assumption collateral ratio below 175% , Force settlement offset Min -10%.
of caurse, when the collateral ratio below 175%, the debt was Margin Call, the Force settlement person don't need the Force settlement to get bts, he can eat the Margin Call.
Asummption arithmetic 1
Force settlement offset=collateral ratio- maintenance collateral ratio
the Force settlement person want get the Min Force settlement offset -10%, he need to wait the collateral ratio to 165%.
Asummption arithmetic 2
Force settlement offset=[collateral ratio- maintenance collateral ratio]/2
the Force settlement person want get the Min Force settlement offset -10%, he need to wait the collateral ratio to 155%.
Assumption arithmetic 3
Force settlement offset={[collateral ratio+maintenance collateral ratio]/2- maintenance collateral ratio}/2
the Force settlement person want get the Min Force settlement offset -10%, he need to wait the collateral ratio to 135%.
Assumption 4
the debt which the collateral ratio below 175%, when it was force settlement, take -10% as the fixed Force settlement offset.
I don't think this Assumption is a good idea.
Assumption 5
the debt which the collateral ratio below 175% will not get the Force settlement offset.
another important key：
Settlement delay, now is 24H
if the rules of the Force settlement can be designed, it can be change to 12h or 6h.
another important key:
Max force settle vol ，now is 0.5%.
this can be changed to 1% or 2%.
-
I'm forever protesting that the rules for bitCNY must be the same as for bitUSD and bitEUR and bitBTC and everything else.
How can bitCNY be anything but the CNY equivalent of bitUSD?
Traders shouldn't have to do fine-grain research to be comfortable trading any/all of these instruments.
-
8 months later BitCNY is still at an offset of 5%
Was told at the time it was a temporary measure.
why should BitCNY be offset at 5% and BitUSD at 1% it just makes no sense and damages the reputation of our stable coins.
-
8 months later BitCNY is still at an offset of 5%
Was told at the time it was a temporary measure.
why should BitCNY be offset at 5% and BitUSD at 1% it just makes no sense and damages the reputation of our stable coins.
srsly.
-
I seriously think it's time to return settlement offset to 1% and I believe it will also play a part in reducing bitCNY premium
(as well as bringing consistency among bitAssets)
-
I seriously think it's time to return settlement offset to 1% and I believe it will also play a part in reducing bitCNY premium
(as well as bringing consistency among bitAssets)
+++
-
I seriously think it's time to return settlement offset to 1% and I believe it will also play a part in reducing bitCNY premium
(as well as bringing consistency among bitAssets)
no, it will help to reduce discount if there is, helpless to reduce premium.
-
I seriously think it's time to return settlement offset to 1% and I believe it will also play a part in reducing bitCNY premium
(as well as bringing consistency among bitAssets)
no, it will help to reduce discount if there is, helpless to reduce premium.
I believe bitCNY market is now in a state where it works in the opposite way.
0.95 of bitCNY value (i.e. what it can be settled for) is considered = 1 CNY and thus traders are trading 1 bitCNY as >1+ CNY leading to premium.
IMHO that is part of the reason why bitCNY over the last couple of months prior to BSIP42 always had a greater premium than other bitAssets.
-
I seriously think it's time to return settlement offset to 1% and I believe it will also play a part in reducing bitCNY premium
(as well as bringing consistency among bitAssets)
no, it will help to reduce discount if there is, helpless to reduce premium.
I believe bitCNY market is now in a state where it works in the opposite way.
0.95 of bitCNY value (i.e. what it can be settled for) is considered = 1 CNY and thus traders are trading 1 bitCNY as >1+ CNY leading to premium.
IMHO that is part of the reason why bitCNY over the last couple of months prior to BSIP42 always had a greater premium than other bitAssets.
5% offset make 1.05bitCNY considered 1 CNY if feed price = market price.
-
I seriously think it's time to return settlement offset to 1% and I believe it will also play a part in reducing bitCNY premium
(as well as bringing consistency among bitAssets)
no, it will help to reduce discount if there is, helpless to reduce premium.
I believe bitCNY market is now in a state where it works in the opposite way.
0.95 of bitCNY value (i.e. what it can be settled for) is considered = 1 CNY and thus traders are trading 1 bitCNY as >1+ CNY leading to premium.
IMHO that is part of the reason why bitCNY over the last couple of months prior to BSIP42 always had a greater premium than other bitAssets.
5% offset make 1.05bitCNY considered 1 CNY if feed price = market price.
You misunderstand me. One thing is what it can be settled for, and a different thing is what the belief/sentiment is.
Look at it this way: I have 1 CNY and I want 1 CNY worth of BTS.
If we put bitCNY settlement mechanism in the middle of this, 1 CNY will get me X bitCNY and 1.05 * X bitCNY will get me 1 CNY worth of BTS.
Thus X <1 -> premium
Essentially work backwards... I think settlement is affecting the market more than the market affects settlement at this juncture.
-
I have to disagree with bitcrab and support clockwork here. Same rational
-
Look at it this way: I have 1 CNY and I want 1 CNY worth of BTS.
If we put bitCNY settlement mechanism in the middle of this, 1 CNY will get me X bitCNY and 1.05 * X bitCNY will get me 1 CNY worth of BTS.
Thus X <1 -> premium
Essentially work backwards... I think settlement is affecting the market more than the market affects settlement at this juncture.
sure, any time 1CNY will get 1CNY worth of BTS, whether there is bitCNY or not.
we have seen 1bitCNY = 0.95-1.2 CNY when offset = 5%, the offset do not determine the premium. it just make sure premium >-5% supposing feed price = market price.