This idea has been discussed in other threads, but the more I think about it the more critical I think it will be.  To describe what I am talking about lets start out with a simple example.

Alice and Bob decide to take opposite bets and one ends up with BitUSD the other is Short BitUSD. 
Immediately after this trade occurs Alice decides she wants out of her position, but Bob doesn't.
Alice has to shop around looking for someone else to take her BitUSD position... no takers.
Alice drops the price to 95%, 90%, 50% of the dollar .... still no takers. 

The value of the dollar hasn't changed during this time, there is just no BitUSD liquidity.  Bob hasn't actually made any money, he is just refusing to give up his position. 

So we have a situation where people are looking to exit their BitUSD position and they are willing to pay a fee to do so.   If the network knows the price then it is easy to implement this.  We simply change the terms of the short "contract".

Bob agrees that Alice has the option to exit her position at  $.90 per BitUSD at any time.  Bob makes money even though the dollar did not fall against BTSX and Alice is assured some liquidity should she need it.   

If we are going to rely on a price feed we can force covering any time the highest offer to buy BitUSD is less than 90% of the feed price.

Does this punish shorts?  I don't think it does.  I think it supports the peg by adding liquidity without adding any risk to the shorts. 

I think this added liquidity should come form which ever shorts are least collateralized.  This way the shorts which don't want to be forced into providing liquidity pre-maturely can avoid it by having a large surplus of collateral and thus making the entire network more secure. 

Under this system BitUSD is always worth at least $0.90 and the market makers / market will likely drive that to near $0.99- $1.01.

I think the problem of overshorting comes from the fact that market is asymmetrical: everybody can sell BitUSD (either by shorting or selling), but only BTSX owners can buy BitUSD.

It would be more natural to make it symmetrical: allow BitUSD owners to short BTSX (effectively create extra BitUSD buy pressure). In this case Alice will have a chance to sell her BitUSD to a pessimist who bought BitUSD, and is so strong about his position that is willing to short BTSX with BitUSD collateral.

Relax, you're ok .

When you backup your wallet with the File->Export it creates a .json file that contains your wallet key and your account private key. Those two things combined with your passphrase can recreate your entire wallet/accounts. The new keys are deterministic as long as you have that .json file.

Each account is deterministic as well. For example I have dumped the private key to riverhead and imported it into a fresh wallet and after a rescan everything for that account repopulated.

The only time you need to refresh your .json backup is if you create a new account. The .json file is encrypted so you do also need to remember your passphrase.

This is closer to Electrum than the Bitcoin-QT wallet though unlike Electrum it's not completely deterministic from seed words.

Ok, even if it's deterministic, it doesn't do the repopulating automatically. Here is the experiment I did:

1. I exported my wallet to bitsharesx1.json
2. I created a BitUSD buy order for amount of X BTSX, and after some time canceled it. Amount (X - 1) BTSX was returned to me.
3. I exported my wallet to bitsharesx2.json
4. I imported bitshares1.json and made a rescan with "wallet_rescan_blockchain" from the console.
5. My account balance lacked those (X - 1) BTSX, which (I concluded) were transfered to another address which was not in bitshares1.json.

I looked at the difference between bitshares1.json and bitshares2.json and found that the latter had 1 more address:
$ grep encrypted_private_key bitshares1.json | wc -l
427
$ grep encrypted_private_key bitshares2.json | wc -l
428

If the BitSharesX program creates new addresses on demand (on every transaction), then the outcome of my experiment was expected. Now, you're saying, that the address creation is deterministic. Does it mean that if I continue using bitshares1.json (and not revert to bitshares2.json), then the next created address will be the one that's missing? I didn't do that because I was afraid of forking my sequence of addresses.

Anyway, this is a problem from a user perspective. No one wants to restore from 1 year old json and see that everything is missing. What I think BitSharesX should do:
1. Precompute a set of addresses.
2. When the precomputed set of addresses is exhausted, warn a user that they need to backup the wallet again.

...  Seeing bitusd for usd on Bter for the first time was really a surreal moment for me. ...

As though everything else here makes complete sense :-)

No.  When you bought someone's short both the btsx that they shorted with and the btsx you paid were put into a fund as collateral.  In order to get that collateral back the shorter has to purchase bitusd and destroy it to cover the short.

So to get the collateral back the shorter must buy somebody else's short, right? Does it mean that the BitUSD cap will always grow?

BitUSD is created when somebody puts a short order. Is BitUSD destroyed when the original short order is closed?

Oh sorry, I made a mistake. I thought 10% of BTS will come from PTS, and another 10% of BTS will come from AGS (like in future DACs), while actually it's 50%/50%.

So, in this case, it's not 15%, but 75%. I'm making a rough assumption the smart market evaluates the initial utility of BTS by the price drop. Some portions of all PTS (except those held for 1/2 AGS) goes to 50% of BTS. The remaining portion (held for 1/2 AGS) goes to 25% of BTS. The AGS part is tricky as it's not obvious how the smart market includes them (has this part been traded or considered to be traded?)

It gives us 30,000 BTC / 75% = 40,000 BTC = $24,000,000 (which is somehow in order with BldSwtTrs's and delulo's predictions).

If we ignore the AGS part, then we can say that total number of PTS coins is lower (maybe around 1,250,000 PTS), so the drop is something like 26,000 BTC, so it gives us: 26,000 / 50% = 52,000 BTC = $31,000,000.

(Sorry, I was lazy to take exact numbers, so everything is just a rough estimate).

I think they were shooting for the 15th, but that was an early guess. If I understand correctly there is no set date and it will be ready when it's ready. I would be surprised if it took longer than a month or two more but that's purely my speculation

I can wait, but I'd like to know exactly what's happening. Where can I track the progress?