BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: kadawum on January 11, 2018, 11:44:51 pm
-
I am trying to understand the mechanics of the Bittwenty index (BTWTY). I have a few questions and it would be nice if someone could clarify if I understand it correctly:
Was the current supply completely issued by estefantt? Is my assumption correct, that BTWTY tracks the performance of the top-20 cryptocurrencies just virtually without physical replication?
Thank you.
-
Paging @EstefanTT
-
It's a market pegged asset, thus it has decentralized issuance - they're shorted/borrowed into existence.
-
How is that possible? There are no margin positions while there are clearly BTWTY in circulation. So it seems they are not only shorted/borrowed into existence. Furthermore, in contrast to bitUSD and bitCNY the issuer is an individual and not the committee-account. Am I missing something?
-
They were shorted/borrowed into existence until global settlement happened. BTWTY suffered from black swan event along with some other assets. After black swap recovery was implemented, some assets were revived but BTWTY is still down. It looks like witnesses lost interest in producing price feeds for it. Yes, BTWTY was created by an individual. Everybody can create a bitasset.
-
Thank you for the explanation. So, how can I determine for a specific asset if it was completely borrowed into existence or if some of the supply was issued by some centralized individual or organization?
Furthermore, in the BTWTY page (https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/asset/BTWTY (https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/asset/BTWTY)) the asset is listed with the permission "ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF". So it seems that the individual who controls the issuing account (in this case estefantt) is able to just transfer the assets back to himself as he wishes. Is there a good reason that this permission flag is enabled? It seems that most other assets (HERO, BitUSD, ...) have this flag enabled as well. In the case of BitUSD the issuer is the committee-account, so that I assume that it is much harder to make use of this permission. But in the case of BTWTY and HERO, it seems that it makes the asset completely centralized and controllable by the one individual who is listed as issuer. Am I missing something here as well? Thank you.
-
Thank you for the explanation. So, how can I determine for a specific asset if it was completely borrowed into existence or if some of the supply was issued by some centralized individual or organization?
It's a smartcoin, it's fundamentally impossible to centrally issue without backing collateral. It can only be shorted into existence with 200% collateral.
Furthermore, in the BTWTY page (https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/asset/BTWTY (https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/asset/BTWTY)) the asset is listed with the permission "ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF". So it seems that the individual who controls the issuing account (in this case estefantt) is able to just transfer the assets back to himself as he wishes. Is there a good reason that this permission flag is enabled? It seems that most other assets (HERO, BitUSD, ...) have this flag enabled as well. In the case of BitUSD the issuer is the committee-account, so that I assume that it is much harder to make use of this permission. But in the case of BTWTY and HERO, it seems that it makes the asset completely centralized and controllable by the one individual who is listed as issuer. Am I missing something here as well? Thank you.
The Hertz algorithm based asset has surrendered such permissions, you're right that this is a troubling flag to not have permanently disabled.
-
ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF
I don't know what the hell does this exactly mean, but bitAsset issuer certainly can't transfer it to himself at his will.
-
ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF
I don't know what the hell does this exactly mean, but bitAsset issuer certainly can't transfer it to himself at his will.
According to this blog entry (http://bit.ly/2D9C5e7 (http://bit.ly/2D9C5e7)) it allows exactly this: to transfer it to anyone else at his will.
-
ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF
I don't know what the hell does this exactly mean, but bitAsset issuer certainly can't transfer it to himself at his will.
According to this blog entry (http://bit.ly/2D9C5e7 (http://bit.ly/2D9C5e7)) it allows exactly this: to transfer it to anyone else at his will.
This blog entry talks about user issued assets (UIA). BTWTY is an market pegged asset (MPA, like bitUSD). It was created by an individual, but it is issued by shorters in a trustless way.
-
They were shorted/borrowed into existence until global settlement happened. BTWTY suffered from black swan event along with some other assets. After black swap recovery was implemented, some assets were revived but BTWTY is still down. It looks like witnesses lost interest in producing price feeds for it. Yes, BTWTY was created by an individual. Everybody can create a bitasset.
I have 3 witnesses publishing the price feed at the moment. The problem comes from the collateral. It's not reaching 175% of the whole supply of BTWTY. Thus, you can't borrow at the moment. BitShares just need to rise a little more and the market will be completely operational.
I'll ask for more witnesses as soon as the borrowing function is back.
-
Thank you for the explanation. So, how can I determine for a specific asset if it was completely borrowed into existence or if some of the supply was issued by some centralized individual or organization?
Furthermore, in the BTWTY page (https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/asset/BTWTY (https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/asset/BTWTY)) the asset is listed with the permission "ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF". So it seems that the individual who controls the issuing account (in this case estefantt) is able to just transfer the assets back to himself as he wishes. Is there a good reason that this permission flag is enabled? It seems that most other assets (HERO, BitUSD, ...) have this flag enabled as well. In the case of BitUSD the issuer is the committee-account, so that I assume that it is much harder to make use of this permission. But in the case of BTWTY and HERO, it seems that it makes the asset completely centralized and controllable by the one individual who is listed as issuer. Am I missing something here as well? Thank you.
Hi, I 'm the founder of Bit20.
To understand fully the mechanics behind Bit20 I recommend to read the following webpages:
Website : http://www.bittwenty.com
Market : http://cryptofresh.com/a/BTWTY
Bitshares smartcoins : https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/
Here you'll find the latest news.
News : https://steemit.com/@blocktivity
There are a big difference between permissions and flags. Permissions are possibilities, flags are real. I leave all permission as standard but I only have 2 active flags : "Charge market fee" and "Witness fed asset". You can see them here : http://cryptofresh.com/a/BTWTY
For any further questions, I would prefer if we use the Bit20 Telegram channel. I'm more reactive there. I only check this forum from time to time.
Telegram group : https://t.me/bittwenty
-
They were shorted/borrowed into existence until global settlement happened. BTWTY suffered from black swan event along with some other assets. After black swap recovery was implemented, some assets were revived but BTWTY is still down. It looks like witnesses lost interest in producing price feeds for it. Yes, BTWTY was created by an individual. Everybody can create a bitasset.
I have 3 witnesses publishing the price feed at the moment. The problem comes from the collateral. It's not reaching 175% of the whole supply of BTWTY. Thus, you can't borrow at the moment. BitShares just need to rise a little more and the market will be completely operational.
I'll ask for more witnesses as soon as the borrowing function is back.
How is this possible? Should not under collateralized positions be margin called?
-
Right now there is no short position that could have been margin called, because the asset is still in black swan state.
It will be revived when either the BTS price increases so that the value of the settlement fund is higher than the collateral requirement for the existing BTWTY, or when an investor shows up and creates a bid for the missing collateral.
With 1.016 BTWTY currently in existance, a price feed of 576133 BTS/BTWTY, MCR of 175% and a settlement fund of 352693, an investor would have to offer this amount to get it revived:
1.016 * 576133 * 1.75 - 352693 = 671672 BTS
That's a lot of money. (And he'd be in danger of being margin called quickly, unless he'd put in even more.)
@EstefanTT you really should remove the override_transfer permission, or explain what you need it for. Doesn't look good.
-
There are a big difference between permissions and flags. Permissions are possibilities, flags are real. I leave all permission as standard but I only have 2 active flags : "Charge market fee" and "Witness fed asset". You can see them here : http://cryptofresh.com/a/BTWTY
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you leave the permission enabled, then you can change the flag whenever you want so that you have the possibility to transfer any BTWTY at your will... Or is that not the case?
The Bitshares Documentation clearly states: "When an asset is created, the issuer can set any combination of flags/permissions. Flags are set in stone unless there is permission to edit. Once a permission to edit is revoked, flags are permanent, and can never be modified again."
Therefore, as far as I understand it, you as the issuer have the permission enabled to edit the flag "ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF". That means you could enable the flag at any time and could make use of it and just transfer funds as you wish. So why not disable that permission? If you have no intention to use that flag, then there should not be any reason to leave that permission enabled, or is there?
-
It will be revived when either the BTS price increases so that the value of the settlement fund is higher than the collateral requirement for the existing BTWTY, or when an investor shows up and creates a bid for the missing collateral.
I don't get it. How would investor "create a bid"?
-
There's a command in the cli_wallet: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-core/blob/master/libraries/wallet/include/graphene/wallet/wallet.hpp#L1193
I don't think there is support in the GUI at this time.
-
There are a big difference between permissions and flags. Permissions are possibilities, flags are real. I leave all permission as standard but I only have 2 active flags : "Charge market fee" and "Witness fed asset". You can see them here : http://cryptofresh.com/a/BTWTY
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you leave the permission enabled, then you can change the flag whenever you want so that you have the possibility to transfer any BTWTY at your will... Or is that not the case?
The Bitshares Documentation clearly states: "When an asset is created, the issuer can set any combination of flags/permissions. Flags are set in stone unless there is permission to edit. Once a permission to edit is revoked, flags are permanent, and can never be modified again."
Therefore, as far as I understand it, you as the issuer have the permission enabled to edit the flag "ISSUER MAY TRANSFER ASSET BACK TO HIMSELF". That means you could enable the flag at any time and could make use of it and just transfer funds as you wish. So why not disable that permission? If you have no intention to use that flag, then there should not be any reason to leave that permission enabled, or is there?
Correct me if I am wrong, but if you leave the permission enabled, then you can change the flag whenever you want so that you have the possibility to transfer any BTWTY at your will... Or is that not the case?
-
Right now there is no short position that could have been margin called, because the asset is still in black swan state.
It will be revived when either the BTS price increases so that the value of the settlement fund is higher than the collateral requirement for the existing BTWTY, or when an investor shows up and creates a bid for the missing collateral.
With 1.016 BTWTY currently in existance, a price feed of 576133 BTS/BTWTY, MCR of 175% and a settlement fund of 352693, an investor would have to offer this amount to get it revived:
1.016 * 576133 * 1.75 - 352693 = 671672 BTS
That's a lot of money. (And he'd be in danger of being margin called quickly, unless he'd put in even more.)
@EstefanTT you really should remove the override_transfer permission, or explain what you need it for. Doesn't look good.
I understand the concerns. I will disable it next time I update the smartcoin (in the next days). My intention is to provide a decentralised crypto fund with no need to trust me or anyone else. Obviously, this permission is not aligned with my intention.
If possible, I would prefer further questions in the Telegram group Bit20. We are 350 users now. I don't visit usually this forum and can't answer your questions as promptly as I would like to.
https://t.me/bittwenty (https://t.me/bittwenty)