Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Crypto Kong

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
Sounds really good, I support this.

The problem I see with using last price is you could be called with not enough liquidity to pay back the loan.

If a liquidation price was used borrowers could be called at the earliest point to return maximum amount to lenders if liquidity dried up.

Having liquidation prices would also make spotting opportunities for market makers easy. They could see liquidation prices in a market far cheaper than on external markets and place orders to try and benefit from a liquidation. Liquidation prices would also deter users borrowing/ lending amounts larger than can be liquidated at a reasonable price.

Collateral and asset being lent should be priced the same as they are the same asset.

Manipulation happens in all markets, you cant stop it. People are also stupid and want easy money, you cant change it. Limiting the availability of this feature or its usefulness to address either of these facts would be short sighted.

What we can do though is highlight risks involved and allow users to make their own decisions.

If someone tries to lend/ borrow a large amount relative to how liquid the market is, they can easily be warned.

Reducing features due to perceived potential market manipulation based on how liquid a market is, is naive. I could be the sole market maker, create a healthy liquid market, tricking the blockchain into thinking it's less risky because of the great liquidity but in reality I am the only market maker and pull my orders at any point.

The above could be done with 5 or 10 market makers working together so tell me... how does the chain determine risk? It cant. All we can do is advise and warn about potential scenarios.

Perhaps more market data/ information is needed to help users determine risk. Such as how many accounts are providing liquidity and how much each user is providing but even this can be gamed by using multiple accounts.

Anyway... I think we have moved slightly off topic and need to refocus on how price should be determined.

Absolutely agree with George's comments above, great point about liquidity is relative to desired position size.

All mechanics of this bsip should focus only on the market in question, feeds for external prices should not be used for so many reasons.

I don't think "price" for calls etc should be determined from feeds and other external markets. "Price" should be determined from the market the loans relate to. Perhaps a full liquidisation of position could be used for price somehow. This price would reflect any lack of liquidity.

I also don't think any markets/ assets should be excluded from margin trading, if the market is illiquid lenders should price in the higher risk accordingly.

If bitshares core can determine illiquid markets, rather than blocking the feature it should warn users of the risk and suggest higher rates.

General Discussion / Re: why not borrowing?
« on: June 15, 2019, 01:03:19 pm »
Until there are on chain incentives to create smartcoins and provide liquidity with them, there will be no serious supply increase. It's about time liquidity providers were rewarded, at the moment its all risk and no reward.

When someone creates a smartcoin there should be a mechanism that rewards the user with BTS for safe collateral ratios and for placing the smartcoins on the books. Rewards would only be paid out to users with CR above 3 for example for a period of time at which those orders remained on the books within say 5% of the market centre price, the closer to the centre price and higher the call ratio the better the reward.

Combine this with a maker/ taker fee schedule and you will see people start to take a real interest in creating smartcoins and providing liquidity with them.

BitShares is no different from any other exchange in the sense that it needs to incentivise liquidity providers if it wants to succeed.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP59:Reduce MCR of bitCNY to 1.6
« on: June 03, 2019, 01:40:51 pm »
This is ridiculous, we should be encouraging people to take out better collateralised positions, not allow them to take out less collateralised positions.

Sounds great!

Sounds amazing, would love to see this happen.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 23, 2019, 04:11:11 am »
Participating BTS shareholders are voluntarily giving their voting power to BEOS so that BEOS is enabled to integrate with bitshares.

Erm, no. They voluntarily lock up their BTS to receive shares from the raindrop.

If you join the BEOS telegram room you will find a room full of people who support the BEOS team and look forward to them using their voting power to vote in BSIPs for trustless gateways. Claiming that people are only interested in the rainfall is simply not true.

Excellent! Let's get it done! I agree, BBF provide excellent service with their escrows for workers but I don't think it is needed in this case and would probably be a waste of funds. However, I may be over looking something? Either way, lets get these articles done and keep the recent marketing push going.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 19, 2019, 03:04:47 pm »
Ok , I don’t know the agreement is stated in advance,I apologize for my mistakes.

Very good of you to own up to your mistakes, much respect :)

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 19, 2019, 02:56:51 pm »
I have quite a bit to say in response, but I will let Daniel Larimer answer for me.

EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 07:44]
No. The issue is any post launch decisions made by any means other than chain splits like bitcoin cash violates token some buyers expectations. So a network must be committed to immutability or it is fundamentally governed by minority of influencers. Governance isn’t bad, it has a place.  The problem is those who want every solution to solve every problem

Replying to:
 >  Voting buying is the biggest issue

🔗 Context 🔗 (

EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 18:17]
The purpose of bp is to decentralize decisions on protocol updates and censorship resistance and generally scaling trx processing.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Regarding the BEOS model of semi centralization/governance (BEOS holders still vote with their stake):

EOS - Dan Msg Only, [16.05.19 18:17]
The purpose of bp is to decentralize decisions on protocol updates and censorship resistance and generally scaling trx processing.

Chains can be centralized and have value. Especially in a multichain world.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Centralized chains in good hands can grow faster and carry on creators vision.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Decentralized chains slow to a crawl.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

My point is don’t hate on centralized systems unless they become monopoly scale.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Everything is decentralized in a competitive market

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Remember you are centralized

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Decentralization is a tool not a goal in itself

🔗 Context 🔗 (

This. Plus with public accountability .

Replying to:
 >  we trust companies to run databases but the thought of one running a private blockchain makes people go nuts. who cares if someone wants to fork EOS and run all the BP's themselves? average users wont give a shit about that. they'll care about the dapps and services.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

If you want real companies doing mass adoption scale things with real investors under government regulation then they need control over the platform that they build.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

You might kill it too young.

Replying to:
 >  Is it necessary for us to hate so it doesn't become monopoly scale?

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Basically people don’t want to go to jail

So hating them for creating something is misguided

🔗 Context 🔗 (

I think we need systems that are more decentralized than bitcoin, eos, and eth. I also think we need more centralized solutions too.  I’m working toward enabling both sides to scale.

🔗 Context 🔗 (

Nicely done, shows that OP has cherry picked a couple of messages to suit his agenda that doesn't represent bytemasters full opinion.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 19, 2019, 02:53:14 pm »
Are you talking about BEOS?
I think the boes account shouldn’t vote, it just hold others’ BTS, and holders don’t give vote rights to beos!

You don't speak for me or the others who have sent BTS to the BEOS gateway. I understand I am giving BEOS team the right to vote with my BTS and am happy for them to do so, I'm sure the others can speak for themselves too.

General Discussion / Re: Bitshares at the cross roads
« on: May 19, 2019, 01:10:41 pm »
This is a throw-away account to protect us from defamation from Stan Larimer. You can call me Don.

It is our opinion that the Bitshares community has to make a hard decision sooner than later: How to deal with bribery and vote-buying that is currently taking place.
The question this community needs to answer is:

Should Bitshares community allow vote buying and concentration of voting power and are we fine with the consequences?

If we let the current situation go on, we (yes, the entire community) set a dangerous precedence for subsequent "projects" to repeat the same scheme - and they may be even more convincing and successful then what is currently taking place. Greed can be dangerous to Bitshares.

Now, answer these questions:

  • Are you willing to risk the entire reserve fund be taken by some random/new player making empty promises to greedy retards?
  • Are you willing to risk our developers to move on because their workers are at stake?
  • Do you want to hand over control over the Blockchain to someone unfamiliar with the technology?
  • Do you honor the work done by 3rd parties that delivered without even claiming to be a partner of Bitshare
  • Do you realize a hostile takeover can end in the blockchain being crippled by hostile committee?

Good for you, we have options and are discussing them with key players in the space already.

Finally, some random quotes from Daniel Larimer:

I suspect that it would be trivial for any of the previously elected delegates to black-list transactions that vote for the attacker.  They could then easily hard fork out the transactions that voted in the attacking delegates and block any future transactions that would vote for them.

If attacker is a collusion by the largest whales, then either the whales think the "attack" is a feature that will enhance the protocol or the "community" will fork the whales out. Bitcoin and Ethereum have both seen what happens when those with large influence use it to change the rules against the minority interests (ETC and BCC).
(Daniel Larimer,

@Admins: I request this account being deleted (with this post staying, if possible).

Nice way to be taken seriously by starting off your thread with ad hominem calling a significant portion of the community, holders of 360 million BTS, "retards". Your argument is so bad you choose to open it this way, making your first point to insult the community... Well done.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6