BitShares Forum
Main => Stakeholder Proposals => Topic started by: binggo on February 27, 2020, 12:13:02 pm
-
Proposal 1.10.57536 is created to set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2 % to 5 %.
The proposal will expire in UTC Mar 3, 2020 16:57.
Committee members, please check and vote!
https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.57536 (https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.57536)
Why we should set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2 % to 5%?
We must all know what is theory of financial repression！
Force settlement=Exchange Rate Manipulation.
1. force_settlement_offset didn't have help for bitasset discount;
When a person finished a force settlement, he will make a market order which is a little higher than the market price, he will not chose to dump in the market directly, this is a very simple trade Logic.
2. A market can't maintain high discount under a normal conditon, the price will fall back into the normal price point by the self-regulation of market, currency arbitrage, these will lock the liquidity of bitasset, force the the discount into a normal level.
3. Force settlement is another form of planned economy.
A lower force_settlement_offset is disrupting the market directly, this is a performance of planned economy.
Most of the fund is taking the advantage of the market loopholes to kill the new and normal users, didn't flow into the normal transaction, this is not healthy.
Big holder of bitasset can destroy the market and debtor easily with a fixed and lower force_settlement_offset.
We can check biteur and bitcny.
4. DAI and USDE can "anchor" healthy without force settlement, all we should think about these.
https://oasis.app/trade/market/WETH/DAI
https://www.pizzadex.io/?pair=usdt2usde
5. 5% offset will maintain until some new mechanism of force settlement is available.
may be:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/160
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/260
6. Why it is 5% not other "parameters", as we have 5% offset for a long time(about 11/01/2017-08/08/2019) , didn't have any big problem.
Related discussion:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32137.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32137.0)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32075.0
(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32075.0)
https://dpos.club/t/topic/748 (https://dpos.club/t/topic/748)
See also：
Inflation Index:
https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1003.pdf
<Inflation, Unemployment, and Monetary Policy> by Robert M. Solow, John B. Taylor, Benjamin M. Friedman
<Inflation, Saving and Growth in Developing Economies> by Anthony Thirlwall
<Financial Deepening in Economic Development> by Edward S. Shaw
<Money and capital in economic development> by Ronald I.Mckinnon
---------------------------
This is the first step.
Second step will be instead of BAIP 2 with EMA which can track the price more quickly.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32153.0
Third step may be MPLP.
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182)
-----------------------------
理事会提案 1.10.57536 已创建， 提案内容：bitcny强清补偿从 2% 提高至 5% .
提案到期时间：UTC时间 2020/03/03 16：57
理事会成员们，请查看并投票。
https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.57536 (https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.57536)
为什么我们应该提高bitcny的强清补偿从2%到5%？
我们都应该清楚什么是金融抑制！
1. 强清补偿对bitasset的折价帮助不大。
当有人完成强清后，他会挂一个市场卖单作maker，挂单价格会略高于市场价，而不是选择直接砸向市场，首先市场承接不会时时满足要求，第二这是一个简单而且基础的市场交易逻辑。
这种贬值在市场常态情况下，会一直存在，属于健康经济的常态通胀，而且这种通胀牵扯的因素相当复杂，单价格论无法支撑，即使供应量下降到100块，这种情况还是会存在，难道也要强清不停？
2. 一个市场在正常条件下是无法持续维持bts的高溢价状态的，价格会自然回落到市场认可的运行区间。
3. 强清其实是另一种形式的计划经济。
过低的强清补偿在直接干预市场的自我运行，属于计划市场调节。
大多数的资金正在利用市场的漏洞绞杀新用户与正常用户，而不是流向正常的市场交易，这本身就不健康。
bitasset大户持有者可以轻松利用固定与低强清补偿摧毁一个市场与抵押群体。
我们可以查看biteur及bitcny。
4. DAI与USDE属于bts的复制者，在没有强清机制的情况下却可以“锚”的很健康，我们都需要思考一下。
https://oasis.app/trade/market/WETH/DAI
https://www.pizzadex.io/?pair=usdt2usde
5，5%的强清补偿将会保持到新的强清机制生效。
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/160
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/260
6. 为什么参数是5%而不是其它参数，因为我们已经使用 5%的强清补偿已经有了相当长的时间，牛小牛大熊小熊好几次(about 11/01/2017-08/08/2019)，并没有出现过大的问题（BSIP42除外）。
相关讨论
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32137.0 (https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32137.0)
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32075.0
(https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32075.0)
https://dpos.club/t/topic/748 (https://dpos.club/t/topic/748)
---------------------------
这是第一步
第二步将使用跟踪价格更快的EMA来代替BAIP 2.
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32153.0
第三步可能是MPLP或者其它替代方案。
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182 (https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182)
---------------------------
相关链接:
反思宏观经济政策：https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/spn/2010/spn1003.pdf
<通货膨胀、失业和货币政策> by Robert M. Solow, John B. Taylor, Benjamin M. Friedman
<发展中经济体的通货膨胀、储蓄和增长> by Anthony Thirlwall
<经济发展中的金融深化> by Edward S. Shaw
<经济发展中的货币与资本> by Ronald I.Mckinnon
-
Just accept the fact, people are not interested to hold a broken mpa.
You could also use your BTS to provide a real mpa, like HONEST.Assets.
-
This proposal is ridiculous.
every trader is clear that force settlement is the power to keep BTS/bitCNY price close to force settlement price, increasing force settlement offset will definitely lead to higher bitCNY discount. and will give no help to the market.
after implementation of BAIP2, force settlement is playing an important role in BTS liquidation offering. and it create a lot of trading chance for both bitCNY holders and debt position owners.
to avoid making things worse, I hope every committee member follow his own logic and judgment, not to support this proposal.
-
IMO in order to update a parameter of a bitasset, a BAIP is needed.
-
Just accept the fact, people are not interested to hold a broken mpa.
You could also use your BTS to provide a real mpa, like HONEST.Assets.
The broken MPA still have the largest user-base and the maximum trad volume in BTS DEX，so this is the fact.
"I don't like your MPA, so i will creat new one HONEST.Assets, peopel will like it as it is HONEST."
So, this is the biggest problem of BTS for so long，"i don't like it, so i will creat new one : HONEST.Assets, HONEST2.Assets, HONEST3.Assets, HONEST4.Assets, TCNY....."
I don' t think the design of bitasset is successful, we have lost many bitassets in this design, no one want to solve the essential problems，just want to creat new one and think it will be better or just wait for something happend and see what is happening.
So you may know what i say.
-
This proposal is ridiculous.
every trader is clear that force settlement is the power to keep BTS/bitCNY price close to force settlement price, increasing force settlement offset will definitely lead to higher bitCNY discount. and will give no help to the market.
after implementation of BAIP2, force settlement is playing an important role in BTS liquidation offering. and it create a lot of trading chance for both bitCNY holders and debt position owners.
to avoid making things worse, I hope every committee member follow his own logic and judgment, not to support this proposal.
plan to raise the bitCNY force settlement offset to 5%
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=25293.msg312379#msg312379
suggest to disable forcesettlement for bitCNY
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27362.msg323693#msg323693
[Committee Proposal] set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY to 1%
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=28619.msg332397;topicseen#msg332397
I have got your volatile logic, thanks.
I think you would still keep your volatile logic with the discount of bitasset.
You seems didn't understand how the water flows.
Best regard.
-
IMO in order to update a parameter of a bitasset, a BAIP is needed.
BAIP5: Set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2 % to 5%
https://github.com/bitshares/baips/issues/22 (https://github.com/bitshares/baips/issues/22)
-
This proposal is ridiculous.
YES. OMG we agree on something bitasset related! Mark the day on the calendar! Festival next year!
...but I'm not sure which is more ridiculous:
increasing from ridiculous 2 to ridiculous 5
or
having the ridiculous notion of "force settlement offset" at all
???
*perplexed*
-
This proposal is ridiculous.
YES. OMG we agree on something bitasset related! Mark the day on the calendar! Festival next year!
...but I'm not sure which is more ridiculous:
increasing from ridiculous 2 to ridiculous 5
or
having the ridiculous notion of "force settlement offset" at all
???
*perplexed*
"They first came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak up
because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn't speak up
because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
but by that time,
there was no one left to speak up."
This is the essence of force settlement, when a force settlement happened, every debtor have the original sin, everyone should get the punishment equally，now we push out the one at the top of the list and kill them, then think we have solved the problem happily and say this our way.
The prices fixed or guided by the government was very common in China, but i found it was well received by the foreign friends, especially in force settlement,
NOW, you should understand, amigo, we used the fixed and guided price by the government as our principle from the beginning.
-
Everyone should clear: force settlement = Exchange Rate Manipulation.
-
Everyone should clear: force settlement = Exchange Rate Manipulation.
Everyone should clear: fake price feeds = Exchange Rate Manipulation.
-
Everyone should clear: force settlement = Exchange Rate Manipulation.
Everyone should clear: fake price feeds = Exchange Rate Manipulation.
I know that.
A higher MSSR is
BAIP2 is
BSIP76 is
We open a window for so long time hope to fix the the defects of mechanism in the open window time, did we finish something? now all you know BSIP 76 and BAIP2 is Exchange Rate Manipulation, but many of you didn't have any adverse options to force settlement, and think it's very right for such long time, that make me very confused.
We lost the spirit of the free market in the beginning, and never found we have lost it for so long time until now.
-
(https://dpos.club/uploads/default/original/1X/5d422871705cdaa5c8c2ec75a465d483e944bc5d.png)
(https://dpos.club/uploads/default/original/1X/cfe946aeb84c6ed0cc0b034ddaa56d74919a7b82.png)
-
Let's check：
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/260
----------------------
Force settlement order price = settlement price*(1+FSO)/(1-FSFR)
smartcoin quantity： X
the buyer：X*(1-FSFR)/[settlement price*(1+FSO)]
the settled debt position owner：X/[settlement price*(1+FSO)]
settlement price：1.0
DEX price：1.025
offset：2%
fee：1%
so，everyone can calculate these very easy and got the result，
so，who can tell me， how to restrain the settlement like now，or just want to charge the fees？！
and if：
offset=0
fee=3%
so the Force settlement order price=1.03093，en very interesting.
a basic trade logic of settlement.
---------------------------
强清订单价格=喂价*（1+强清补偿）/（1-费率）
强清金额为：X 数量的bitcny
强清者获得的bts数量为 ：X*(1-费率）/ 喂价*（1+强清补偿），付出X
被强清者付出的bts数量为：X / 喂价*(1+强清补偿）, 获得X
喂价：1.0
内盘价格：1.025
强清补偿：2%
强清价格：1.02
现在的强清逻辑的话可以直接清了。
改后的强清逻辑：
假如手续费为：1%，
那么强清的价格为：1.0303
这样的话内盘价格到1.035就可以了/
这样看着似乎不错了，但是这个价格空间，你们还是会被清的活来死去。
而且如果我预估没有错的话，到时候可能强清补偿会为1%，手续费1%[哈哈][哈哈][哈哈][哈哈][哈哈][坏笑][坏笑][坏笑][坏笑][憧憬][憧憬][憧憬][憧憬] 嗯，似乎什么地方不对[笑cry][笑cry]
假如补偿为零，手续费为3%的话，嗯，似乎就更有趣了。
也许，你们就是为了想要收费而已...
-
CLOSED.
SUPPORTERS, please remove your vote from me, thanks.
-
I doubt it would have changed something.
Increasing the offset to 5% would only move the buy orders and sell orders at a higher price.
Debt holders who get force settled mostly instantly adds buy orders near price they receive for forcesettle.
Instead an offset of 5% it should be offset 0% and a "penalty" fee for network of 3% which would create a gap between buy and sell orders which would hopefully reduce force settlements.
-
I doubt it would have changed something.
Increasing the offset to 5% would only move the buy orders and sell orders at a higher price.
Debt holders who get force settled mostly instantly adds buy orders near price they receive for forcesettle.
Instead an offset of 5% it should be offset 0% and a "penalty" fee for network of 3% which would create a gap between buy and sell orders which would hopefully reduce force settlements.
This is the risk to maintain DEX price = feed price*（1+offset or “penalty" fee）in the market.
Maintain price Risk = {1/MCR - 1/(MCR+MCR*offset)}/ (1/MCR)
let's make it simple: Maintain price Risk= offset or “penalty" fee.
also you can check the FOREX.
If you still didn't understand it, sorry about that.
May be most of you not clear about the trade logic and the market, have lost the spirit of free market, just want a dead and fixed exchang rate market.
---------------------
Besides:
The window time of lock feed price is too long，BTS community still didn‘t find out the solution，that make BTS became a joke in DEFI, BSIP76 beame meaninglessness.
-
既想让抵押者提供锚定资产的流动性，又想让抵押者清来清去提供bts流动性，互相戳屁股玩，系统还能从互相戳屁股过程中捞到好处，整个稳定币圈也就是你们这些个鼻祖聪明绝顶了。
你们可以继续这样搞稳定币，继续这样玩，看看到最后谁死。