FFS bitcrab, I thought BitShares was supposed to be decentralised.
You adjust all the parameters to suit your whale positions.
you run the open market operations (a major conflict of interest.)
you got the committee to change force settlement on BitCNY to 5%(supposedly temporarily) when all other bitassets are 1%
now you want to change MSSR for your own ends.
lets just rename it Crabshares

@JonnyB, it is a little unfair to claim he is changing anything. If at all, it is the committee that has the power to modify parameters. That includes more than just bitcrab.
In the forums, we should keep a friendly environment to proposals and learn from discussions.
@bitcrab merely proposed a change to get things started with discussions.

Have you been around here when Dan Larimer proposed to have only 7 block producers? Same thing: A controversial proposal

All of these potential changes should be considered for all bit assets.  No reason for CYN to be different, this is more confusing for users.

I need to disagree here, bitCNY has much more liquidity than any of the other assets. Disconnecting its parameters from others makes sense IMHO.



With respect to the actual proposal, I think it is worth exeperimenting with the MSSR for bitCNY (only bitCNY!) given the increased volume there (we had over 100M BTS volume there yesterday).
We've known from the beginning that eventually some bitassets will be more prominent than others, and bitCNY certainly went through the charts compared to others. It should be allowed to have
a different set of parameters *AS LONG* as we let all market participants know about those changes before they get implemented.

To the change of MSSR, I believe it makes sense for CNY which has quite some liquidity near the spread. Lowering the MSSR might bring the premium of CNY down in case of BTS price decline.
However, it also reduces the potential profits for those that shortsell into the margin calls (because their profit is less then).

The other concern I have is the use of OMO in bitCNY. I am unclear how much of the liquidity is offered by OMO and how much comes from 3rd party traders. Certainly, yesterday, the 100M volume
has not been caused by OMO. The more I think about OMO the more I believe it should be replaced by a more something that is called "community hedge fund" and allows for actual market making
to act as a regular market participant with profits for the reserves.

I believe, once we have the custom operations BSIP approved and ready on chain, we might actually be able to technically hire someone for trading and pay them for doing so. (different topic)

To conclude the discussion about MSSR, I think we should continue discussion about lowering it. I would like to see its effect on bitCNY.
However, we should learn from the lessons of raising settlement offset of 5% and make clear that we all understand when an expiriment is a success or when it failed.

That said, I would propose the following procedure:
0. let's continue discussion about how much the MSSR should be lowered
1. let's define a metric that allows us to identify if that has had any effect
2. a proposal shall be created for committee to lower it with an expiration of at least 2 weeks!
3. 3 months after the proposal has executed, the MSSR should be re-evaluated in public discussion together with the metrics of 1.
4. 2 other proposal shall be created to the committee to either approve the lower MSSR or to reset it to 10.

"bitasset.feeds.count(o.publisher)" That error usually means you are trying to publish a feed for an asset where you are not allowed to publish assets.
Are you still active witness?

Only public keys are transferred to the faucet. You can see the actual API here:
https://bitshares.eu/referral/info/api

Suggestion was not for core to use MAX of price feeds...core would still use median...suggestion was for individual pricefeeds to take the max between CEXs and DEX...

The more I think about, the more merits I can find in this approach. Still, I do not think we can weight DEX and CEX equally, we should stick with *VOLUME* and than it is no different than
considering the DEX as much an exchange as any other too, from point of view of the feed produer

BBF mustn't be the only choice, and also shouldn't be.
No one seeks to have only one centralized escrow. It is merely one (afaik the only one) that offers auditable bitUSD worker escrow and is the voted spokesperson, aka has the BTS holders trust.

Has BLCKCHND introduced themselves as an escrow? You can also consider asking trusted members of the community.

This!

But, price feeds are supposed to be volumen weighted.

An alternative solution to 'raising' the price would be to use a moving average for the price feeds so that CEX markets can recover and that would have less of an impact on the feed price.

That would on the one hand side result in the feed price having more inertia and behave more sluggish, and on the other hand result in margin calls to be triggered "later".
This way, temporary dips in the CEX markets would not result in the feed price moving as much. However, margin calls are then also coming later, but then would come more
heavy to the price feeds.

Either way, I still think we should rather make feed prices reflect the price of BTS more fairly than to artifically tune it to our liking.
One way of doing so would be to have BTS listed on more exchanges and do our best to increase volumen on *any exchange* (including the DEX). The internal trading price could be fed back (volume weighted) into the price feed calculation as well.

Again, the big question to ask ourselves is "what is a fair price". And I do not think that there is an easy answer to that. we can only try make it more obvious what the "market thinks" a "fair price" would be.

IMHO

This week I also added Bitshares integration to EOSIO/demux-js. You can find out more information on Demux here.

Extraordinary!

M..M..M..M..M..M..Monster Release