BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: bitcrab on September 15, 2018, 04:03:19 am
-
BSIP42 now worked fairly well in bitCNY. in several days the bitCNY premium decreased from above 5% to about 0.35%(this moment).
however, we are now facing 2 problems:
1. based on BSIP42, feed price may be much higher than Pdex(BTS price in DEX in bitCNY) in bear market, it may also be much lower than Pdex in bull market, now we have a 5% force settlement offset for bitCNY, but in bull market, it's possible that feed price be more than 5% lower than Pdex, at that time there will be chance for bitCNY holders to make profit by exploiting the debt position owners.
2. black swan possibility increased? now feed price is 12.3% higher than the latest price in DEX, many margined called orders just stayed there without being eaten, at this moment the highest call price in these orders is 0.9088, and we have a global settlement price of 0.5193.
I feel now force settlement and black swan now make little sense for bitCNY, especially after the BSIP implementation.
bitCNY has a force settlement offset of 5% for long time, it is seldom used, no obvious impact on the pegging of bitCNY. thanks to the good liquidity of bitCNY, bitCNY pegging depend little on the force settlement feature.
after BSIP42 implementation, it is the negative feedback mechanism, not the sufficient collateral promise that play the key role for bitCNY pegging, now when bitCNY is close to black swan, bitCNY will also has very high premium, the negative feedback mechanism will work to help to recover the BTS price. no need to trigger global setting.
in my view, for bitCNY, force settlement and black swan now make little sense but bring some trouble, I wonder whether it is possible to disable these 2 features.
any thoughts? we need sufficient discussion on this topic, no need to rush to a conclusion.
-
It is not a goode idea to disable force settlement.
Force settlement offset dynamic varying as the collateral ratio is the right way.
No one can judge when is the bear or bull market.
-
When I look into BSIP 42 I understand that witnesses are allowed to also adjust the Force settlement offset, which should be looked into now as well. It is unsurprising settlement is seldom used with a 5% fee.
Force settlement and the promise of sufficient collateral is the unique and key value proposition of SmartCoins. Certainly in high liquidity markets this will never be needed, but it must remain. Without those two it is nothing else but a UIA. I think arbitration through force settlement is a healthy market mechanism (the parameters must be fine-tuned).
-
It is not possible to disable black swans.
This latest idea together with all the experiments and tweaking have taken bitCNY so far away from the original idea of BitShares' smartcoins that it would make sense to introduce a new kind of smartcoin tailored to your needs.
-
Technically, black swan can be avoid by feeding a price always higher than black swan price * MSSR. It might be considered as manipulation.
IMHO we do need collateralization, however I don't think a hard limit is the best. The market will tell us how high the collateral ratio is good enough. Let it float. Of course there are risks involved.
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. (Update: I've changed my mind, please read following discussions for the reason) For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
-
I wouldn't necessarily call this event a black swan anymore. In the past when a global settlement occurred there was no recovery mechanism for this state and thus a black swan scenario would last months. Since mid 2017 we've had BSIP 18 implemented which provides an automated global settlement recovery mechanism: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0018.md
When a global settlement occurs you're unable to borrow new tokens (no issuance). You are however still able to trade it on the DEX, transfer it to anyone, settle your MPA for part of the BTS settlement pool, potentially even use it as backing collateral in an L2 MPA, so it's not completely useless in this state.
I would prefer this mechanism occurs than for force settlement to be disabled, heck I'd rather see MCR go to 101% before these centralized flags are triggered at 175%.
The proposed operation enables potential investors to "bid" additional collateral for taking over part of the debt (or all of it). When enough bids have been made to cover the full outstanding debt, and all of them are sufficiently collateralized (in terms of price feed and MCR), the settlement_fund and the bids are turned into call positions. Finally, the settlement_price is removed from the asset, which revives it.
If the available bids cover more than the outstanding debt, bids with a higher collateral/debt ratio are preferred over those with a lower ratio. The intent is to turn the competition among investors into better collateralized calls, which is in the interest of the MPA holders.
Perhaps we can incentivize investors to participate in the automated recovery mechanism somehow if you don't think it's sufficient in recovering bitCNY?
-
It is not possible to disable black swans.
This latest idea together with all the experiments and tweaking have taken bitCNY so far away from the original idea of BitShares' smartcoins that it would make sense to introduce a new kind of smartcoin tailored to your needs.
nothing impossible.
what we should do is to make bitCNY/bitUSD the best stable coins in the token economy world, not to fix on the original idea of Bitshares smartcoins.
smartcoin need evolve.
it is reluctant to tell the users:"hi Buddy, bitCNY/bitUSD has some problem, could you please switch to XXXCNY/XXXUSD?"
-
Disable force settlement and global settlement, Are you mad?
You initially said the 5% force settlement was a temporary measure, that was a year ago. Bitshares is a protocol you can't keep changing the rules for your own interests even as a big whale.
As someone else said, make your own CNY smartcoin don't try and change the committee assets.
How can someone have faith in a stablecoin when the rules change every year.
-
It is not possible to disable black swans.
This latest idea together with all the experiments and tweaking have taken bitCNY so far away from the original idea of BitShares' smartcoins that it would make sense to introduce a new kind of smartcoin tailored to your needs.
this. leave bitCNY and create a privatized MPA instead please
-
Its not just the price that should be kept constant and stable on a stable coin but the rules too. You cant keep changing the rules as you please. I agree that we dont have to stick with the original vision and should try and improve but removing global settlement is not it. Any changes should be made across all assetts too not just bitCNY. There should be a standard that represents all smart coins not a different set of rules for each coin.
-
Disable force settlement and global settlement, Are you mad?
You initially said the 5% force settlement was a temporary measure, that was a year ago. Bitshares is a protocol you can't keep changing the rules for your own interests even as a big whale.
As someone else said, make your own CNY smartcoin don't try and change the committee assets.
How can someone have faith in a stablecoin when the rules change every year.
all the changes are based on consensus.
anyone can suggest to change the committee assets, if there are strong consensus on changing, change will happen. smartcoin need to evolve, don't say "keep *** unchanged, create your own assets", if you disagree one suggestion, just explain your opinion.
change do not lead to losing faith, keep everything unchanged even it is very necessary will lead to losing faith.
bitCNY kept losing faith until BSIP42 come out.
for bitCNY, force settlement make little sense, 5% offset is to protect debt position owners from being hurt, I do not suggest to change the offset back because I don't see any necessity to do that, after the BSIP42 implementation, if we do not disable force settlement for bitCNY, maybe some time we need to increase the offset to 10% or even higher to ensure the system work well.
-
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
-
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
I said "when it's better to buy", which means I thought there could be scenarios that "it's better to settle".
We need to improve user experience (UX). There is a "settle" button on UI and people click it for whatever reason, then sometimes they get less than expected and get frustrated. Either improve UI, or improve the back end, or both. Or perhaps as you said -- disable/remove it.
for bitCNY, force settlement make little sense, 5% offset is to protect debt position owners from being hurt, I do not suggest to change the offset back because I don't see any necessity to do that, after the BSIP42 implementation, if we do not disable force settlement for bitCNY, maybe some time we need to increase the offset to 10% or even higher to ensure the system work well.
It's fair to foresee/discuss such a scenario.
When bitCNY is oversupplied, bitCNY will be traded at a discount in the market. According to BSIP42, witness will feed a lower BTS price which will effectively require borrowers to put more BTS in collateral, otherwise they'll get margin called. BitCNY being traded at a discount means there are sufficient orders buying BTS with higher price than external exchanges, so the margin calls will consume(match) the buy orders at the buy orders' price thus will create a pressure pushing the price towards par. The whole process is quick because margin calls execute with no delay and no amount limit. The match price will be fair because it's real market trading price. Due to BSIP38 (target collateral ratio), pressure will be split fairly/evenly among all borrowers because every borrower will sell some collateral when price feed changes.
On the other hand, if enabled forced settlement, due to potential low feed price caused by BSIP42, people can settle bitCNY then sell to the buy orders for profit. Effectively it will lead to the same as margin calls do. The differences are
a) execution price of forced settlements is median feed price * (1+offset),
b) there is a delay to execute forced settlements,
c) there is a limit on amount to settle per hour,
d) lack of a mechanism like BSIP38.
Due to b) and c) the forced-settlement mechanism is slow/inefficient in comparison to margin calls, although the committee IS able to change the parameters to shorter/larger.
a) and d) lead to friction. In other words, the mechanism is unfair, especially when BSIP42 is in place. Opportunists will settle at a too low price then sell to innocent buyers to make profits which will harm the borrowers and the whole ecosystem.
To solve a), we need to either stop executing BSIP42, or adjust the offset accordingly. In the latter case, since the offset is a committee-controlled parameter, it can't be adjust as quickly as price feed. Setting it to a value too high effectively disables force-settlement.
There is no easy solution for d), forced-settlement is not included in BSIP38 because it's difficult to do so at that time. We can discuss more about this if necessary.
-
@bitcrab @abit
I think most people agree the GUI should prompt the user to buy BTS with BitAsset when they try and force settle but only when the price is better.
-
Who voted this guy into committee? His retarded proposals, which are aimed to make his private exchange profitable, will kill all bitshares ecosystem. People, stop voting for him, or this network will convert into trash.
-
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.
Alternative proposal - disable (permanently) the following centralized permissions in bitCNY/bitUSD:
White list
Override authority
Transfer restricted
Disable force settle
Disable confidential
-
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.
It's also possible that the "if" will not happen. If the price of your order is competitive, IMHO it will be filled quite soon in a liquid market. Being able to buy a large amount without affecting the market trading price is a stupid design.
Alternative proposal - disable (permanently) the following centralized permissions in bitCNY/bitUSD:
White list
Override authority
Transfer restricted
Disable force settle
Disable confidential
This is off-topic.
-
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.
It's also possible that the "if" will not happen. If the price of your order is competitive, IMHO it will be filled quite soon in a liquid market. Being able to buy a large amount without affecting the market trading price is a stupid design.
So if the 'if' will not happen, why disable forced settlement at all in the first place? Fractional reserves should not be encouraged due to shorters poor gambling choices - they should be globally settled upon rather than bailed out, as laid out in BSIP 18.
Alternative proposal - disable (permanently) the following centralized permissions in bitCNY/bitUSD:
White list
Override authority
Transfer restricted
Disable force settle
Disable confidential
This is off-topic.
I disagree, with these permissions available (including 'Disable force settle' as referenced in this topic) there is the risk of malicious actors attempting to abuse such centralized permissions.
-
In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.
It's also possible that the "if" will not happen. If the price of your order is competitive, IMHO it will be filled quite soon in a liquid market. Being able to buy a large amount without affecting the market trading price is a stupid design.
So if the 'if' will not happen, why disable forced settlement at all in the first place? Fractional reserves should not be encouraged due to shorters poor gambling choices - they should be globally settled upon rather than bailed out, as laid out in BSIP 18.
I've analyzed in the first page why forced settlement is not necessary but even harmful.
The situation is different between in bull and in bear.
Due to BSIP42, "the settlement price" is no longer the fair market trading price. The fairest price would be on the order book.
-
@bitcrab
is the cancelation of global settlement again a trojan horse to protect your both own assets which are getting margin called ?
Bitcrab didn't you bought using the OMO funds already your own margin called BTS at highest possible price ?
Bitshares is not your fucking own ecosystem.
You are clearly abusing it which i already saw in your beginning placing trojan horses so changes come quick which can't be reversed easily anymore.
You are a clear cancer to bitshares abusing currently that ecosystem and you are a fucking LIAR.
When i posted that increasing feed price is going to create these exect situation that there will be high risk of global settlement and according to my trading experience its going to happen because of you moron but you answered that the feed price will stabalise the price and make the smartcoin more safe against global settlement.
Now you fucking LIAR have your fucking manipulated feed price which is causing big margin walls which i predicted and which will only increase the global settlement price and never decrease it since no margin call ever will be bought anymore because of your fucking stupid manipulated feed price.Now you fucking LIAR have the gut to come here and
try to confince that taking away the fucking global settlement is something positiv.
You fucking know what a stablecoin is ?You know what it means to be backed by something ?
Bitshares whole promotion was based that bitassets are fully backed where the USD is backed by air.
Now you want to change this major rule from bitshares ?
Why don't we call it by its real name ?
We are going to protect your own ass as your trading abilities are horrible.You totaly fucked up the last couple of months and are fearing now to lose majority of your BTS
and lose control over bitshares.
You are just a liar adding never ending trojan horses to the bitshares community trying to safe your own ass at the cost of the community.
You are an egoist who is a real cancer to this community.
If bitshares community let the global settlement fall i will be the first spending $1000 for ads promoting that BTS is no more backed by anything just by incompetent commitee members who are supporting this kind of crap and nothing more.
You clearly overcrossed your line long ago.Its just sad people needed so long to see your real intentions.
*To Mods.
I use my right for free speech and expressing myself in the way i like to.
Technically, black swan can be avoid by feeding a price always higher than black swan price * MSSR. It might be considered as manipulation.
I guess this says everything.
Why not just add 1.000.000.000 bitusd and buy BTS to nirvana ?Or instantly set a BTS feed price of 70 CNY ?What other manipulation can we use since we own majority of voters heh ?
what we should do is to make bitCNY/bitUSD the best stable coins in the token economy world
LOL based and backed on what ?Your poor promises and manipulation ?
People get mad saying Tether may have no backing and your way BTS will clearly have no backing at all.
Your statements are so poor its just insane how so much people could trust you their funds.
But you surely will increase it by manipulation the whole ecosystem to not lose face
Also a word to the naive comitee members who are protecting this clear manipulation claiming its just for bitcny which is backed by real cny.All i can say its not backed by real CNY 1:1 .
If you claim it is please post full proof that you have enough fiat for bitcny to back it 1:1 .
And more important Bitcrab already posted the next quick step will be the implementation of the manipulated feed price on BitUSD which has completly no liquidity.What this will cause is the bitshares community will be forced to cancel global settlement and bitcrab has his goal achieved.
All his accounts with BitUSD and BitCNY can't get margin called anymore or lose its collateral to global settlement.
Maybe we should also ask these manipulators how many million BTS they bought during last days when changing everything knowing they can't get margin called anymore.
You deserve a kick in your buts for this kind of actions and the comitee members supporting it deserve also a kick in their butt for their blind stupidity which leaded us here and defending each time this actions which the whole community disagrees.
And am making also a promise as community member and marketing guy.I will be the first advertising EVERYWHERE that BTS is backed by horseshit should the global settlement be removed.
Let's see what is more important a manipulated feed price with bitcrabs saved ass or the trust of community and people in bitassets.
And a final suggestion to bitcrab.
After removing the global settlement we should also change MCR from 175% to 0.1%. Since global settlement isn't working anymore and bitassets are not backed anymore what diffrence does it make ?It will be even positiv for bitshares ecosystem because this way everyone can create at least 1.000.000 new bitcny and the price of BTS will skyrocket to 1000 BitCNY where the price of DEX will dictate the external exchange prices since the biggest volume will be on DEX......
Perfect plan and working so quickly.Lets be millionars in just 4 weeks.
BitCNY will be the best stable coin in the token econemy world.
Agree ?
-
Nope, not a good idea at all.
End of story.
-
I think the amount of outrage at this proposal is quite clear from posts in this thread and @bitcrab should withdraw it and rethink how else our smartcoins can be improved. This idea is a no go.
Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Igct_XWpAQ&feature=youtu.be
-
If you are against inaccurate price feeds you need to actively vote against it not just abstain. BSIP42 basically says witnesses can feed in manipulated prices.
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0042.md
(https://i.imgur.com/fUHnPM1.png)
-
After thinking about it, I don't think this is needed actually. The margin calls will eventually be eaten up in a bull market. Although, the risk of black swan is higher in a bear market with the new feed algorithm. Thats true
-
bad idea
-
*To Mods.
I use my right for free speech and expressing myself in the way i like to.
Let me make this very clear to you and everyone else, right away. This forum is operated by the BitShares Blockchain Foundation and as such lives under Dutch law.
Your 'free speech' has been granted to you by your government, is limited to public law and does NOT apply in this forum which is privately operated.
Consequently, you can (and will be) lectured by means available to the operator, if they so chose, in case you continue personal rampage. Your tone is unacceptable not just for this community and the desire to cooperate to solve current issues (which constantly change) but is also unacceptable for the internet as a whole.
Provided that I dont speak for the BBF, i cannot give you an official warning, but rest assured that this is escalated to the proper authorities.
So, please stick to basic netiquette or go somewhere else.
-
*To Mods.
I use my right for free speech and expressing myself in the way i like to.
Let me make this very clear to you and everyone else, right away. This forum is operated by the BitShares Blockchain Foundation and as such lives under Dutch law.
Your 'free speech' has been granted to you by your government, is limited to public law and does NOT apply in this forum which is privately operated.
Consequently, you can (and will be) lectured by means available to the operator, if they so chose, in case you continue personal rampage. Your tone is unacceptable not just for this community and the desire to cooperate to solve current issues (which constantly change) but is also unacceptable for the internet as a whole.
Provided that I dont speak for the BBF, i cannot give you an official warning, but rest assured that this is escalated to the proper authorities.
So, please stick to basic netiquette or go somewhere else.
Dear Xeroc ,
I'm sorry to say it but you are once again wrong.
The only terms which are binding are the terms of that forum which i had to accept when registering an account here.
Based on these terms there was no information that this forum is run under the bitshares blockchain foundation nor is that forum hosted on a dutch server.
But the terms i and everyone else agreed on cointain.
or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law.
If you want to put that forum under dutch law because its being run by bitshares blockchain foundation which i didn't knew before and to which i have no contract you would have to update the terms stating who the owner of that forum is and which law apply.If i'm not mistaken you would have also to add an imprint.
Also i want to inform that based on many requests of community members who support my actions but don't want me to get banned but keep posting i will change words to basic netiquette
which doesn't mean i will change my point of view or the demand to change bitshares back to the right track.
Also i would like to inform about your misleading argument that i don't have a personal rampage against anyone but his name is mentioned so often because its him who is the main force behind all negativ changes which accured during the last months and to which majority of the community disagrees.
I would also like to ask since you want to punish me as my tone is according to you unacceptable and harmful what punishments do you have for people who break massivly
community consensus and put community funds in risk or even lose a part of it ?
I highly doubt i will get an answer to that.
Regards Thul3
-
Thul3 concerns are valid and we should not allow manipulating core functions to cover a lack of trading abilities.
-
At present, the price of RMB is ideal for bitcny. The anchoring effect is very good. Why is there any objection to the feed price reform? You go to the English speaking area to urge foreigners to oppose reform, so what's good for BTS?
目前bitcny对人民币的价格很理想。锚定效果很好，有什么理由反对喂价改革。你去英文区怂恿老外反对改革，这样对BTS有什么好处。
-
Jurisprudentially, the global liquidation of the Black Swan occurs as an infringement on both the mortgagee and the holder of the anchored asset. The black swan is the result of the two sides short playing game, and it is the two sides that should bear the consequences together. After the black swan occurs, if the market warms up，then the global liquidation causes mortgage damage, and if the market continues to fall, the global liquidation aggravates the holder's injury.