If one has 50% shares, he can make himself all 101 delegates whatever others do. Currently one only needs 25% to achieve this because nobody gets more than 25% votes. Actually the percentage needed to monopoly is much less. Considering that the current 101th delegate has about 8% votes, it is hard not to suspect that all the current 101 delegates could be actually controlled by 1 who occupies more than 8% bitshares or very few people combining together. This is definitely not decentralization.

Why not make 1 share voted to only 1 delegate? Was there any discussion about this before? If it is difficult to implement or use, a simpler version can be to share the vote. Say 1 share is voted to n delegates, each should get 1/n votes instead of 1. I feel this would be more fair and to the point of decentralization. A whale can probably control a few delegates but that's fine. Permitting a whale to control all or majority of delegates is not the correct idea. There must be improvements.

到时候如果不能自己赎回抵押，系统会如何处理？那么多BTS卖出来，把买单全部吃掉也不够啊？内盘价格是不是直接打到0？还不够的部分怎么办？

Although pegging is supposed to keep the value at 1:1, there is always a feeling that bit asset is not as valuable as real asset. Reasoning as follows. Feed price should be a good indication of current market price of bitshares. At external markets, when you sell at bitshares at market price, most likely you'll expect to sell at lower than feed price. On the other hand, if you buy bitshares at market price, you'll have to pay more than feed price. However, at the internal market, almost for sure you can sell bitshares at or higher than feed price. Of course, when you buy bitshares, you'll have to pay much higher than the feed price. Obviously there is difference between bit asset and real asset. Although it's hard to say how much difference there is, it is not hard to see that bit asset is actually cheaper.
One possible solution is to lower the feed price by maybe 1%. The disallows the guarantee of selling of bitshare at feed price, therefore increases the value of bit assets.

If buying and shorting depth aren't deep enough, when margin orders are expiring, will they dump the price to 0? Maybe not likely to happen in the USD market, but in other market this might happen. For example in the current EUR/BTS market, 1050 EUR needs to be covered in 9 days, but the current short depth is only 1020. When those 1050 EUR are expiring, will they empty the buying order book?  Does it mean that if I put an order right before those margin orders expire, e.g., to buy 1 million BTS for 0.01 EUR and I'll get the deal?

Collateral和Quantity似乎是联动的，当前feed price 0.016383 BitUSD/BTSX。打入Quantity1.6383BitUSD, collateral 变成200 BTSX.这是怎么算的？如果成交的话，加上BitUSD买方的100个BTSX，岂不是有300个BTSX被锁在里面？以前不是买卖双方各出100BTSX吗？为什么现在Short方要出200 BTSX？

Interest Rate是什么意思？默认是0，如果填了会怎样，谁来支付利息？

Price Limit是什麽意思？是不是不能超过feed price? 以前不是只能按照feed price来short?现在可以自己填价钱了？如果不填，是不是就按照feed price，而且feed price要是变了也会自动跟着变？如果填了，是不是就不能自动变了？

要让Short单优先成交有什么办法？如果都按照feed price来short，是不是先下单的先成交？
目前的规则下似乎只有BTSX跌势下才有可能有short成交。涨势下应该是没法成交的。是不是这样的？

问题很多，但是找不到明确的规则。以前的规则还好懂一点。不知道什么时候变了，有很多地方不明白了。

OpenBazaar is coming to the btc world, and in the nxt world there is nxtfreemarket in the making. Is there anything in the bitshares world to compete with them? Or are we simply waiting for openbazaar and fork the code to use bit assets instead of btc?
Using bit assets should be a big advantage over other virtual currencies thanks to the low fluctuation. High fluctuation is always unfavorable to either the buyer or seller when the transaction takes days to complete. We should come up with something comparable to openbazaar and it will be a great promotion to bit assets.

Now the average price is 0.032779 and the highers margin call price is 0.033039, but the call is not triggered yet. What is the exact condition to triggering margin call?

好象0.4.7版的时候Margin Orders一栏是有内容的，更新到0.4.8a以后就没了。0.4.9始终没能连接成功。
命令行有什么办法看吗？