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 - paliboy

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12
First 3 witnesses who changed MSSR :


If you got them as witness voted you can unvote them if you don't agree to their actions

To be more precise, those three changed MSSR on bitCNY.

witness.yao changed it also on bitUSD and bitEUR that was not part of the discussion!!!

I think that this one is much safer experiment than the one influencing the CNY feed price. Definitely don't implement both at the same time, otherwise you cannot judge the effect of one or the other. Give people long enough time (counting in months) to adjust their behavior.

I was thinking about 0.001% after all fees (net profit). The point is that no matter how small the relative profit is, if the base is huge, there will be somebody who will take his part and therefore no buy wall will keep for long time.

Yes, it could happen that the wall would stay in place for some time if the price difference between CEX and DEX would be too small for arbitrage to be worth of effort. But I still cannot imagine that there would not be a single person in the world who would like to get free money, even if it would be just 0.001% of 1 million of bitUSD :)

That is not the main problem... no matter how big the wall would be, it would be eaten quite quickly. The problem is that funds creating this wall belong to the community and therefore nobody should gamble with them.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: bitcrab - make the ecosystem grow
« on: August 10, 2018, 01:22:00 pm »
Thanks, it makes sense

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: bitcrab - make the ecosystem grow
« on: August 10, 2018, 11:09:13 am »
mr.agsexplorer worries me more... is there any SLA how often should witnesses produce feed? 3 hours doesn't seem right for actively traded assets.

I don't think so, it is just the result of one exploitation

How come you think its based on one exploitation?
Even if it would be based on one exploitation wouldn't it be fixed if these people would just adjust their CR correctly to not cause such an exploitation ?

I cannot believe that the current price of BTS is a result of just a one-time exploitation. The best way how to prevent manipulation is to make it very expensive by providing value to customers. In this case it could be achieved by updating debt positions to high enough CR.

Also sure (at least to me) is that price feeds need to grow and be taken more seriously as markets mature. Witnesses need to take their responsibility serious and keep up with market price.


Additionaly, I refrain from acting *quickly* out of markets behaving unexpected. The movements in the last days, shouldn't be take as arguments to modify the smart coin parameters (feeds).
There is a much bigger picture to bitCNY and that is long-term predictability.

Those that sold their BTS on CEX to buy from margin calls on another exchange (DEX) is *business as usual*. Could have well been caused by arbitrators instead of feed producers.

That said, I am not totally against experimentation - but I would rather see small steps and proper discussion before implementation.
Do we understand all the implications of "raising" the price "artificially"?

I completely agree - experiments are important but need to be discussed properly and transparently.

But, price feeds are supposed to be volumen weighted.

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.

I agree, I see no reason why not to include volume-weighted DEX price into feed.

General Discussion / Re: review the drastic fall
« on: August 10, 2018, 09:00:17 am »
what we want is just to avoid the price maunipulation from outside DEX.

Who/how can manipulate the price from outside of DEX?

sometimes traders can sell big in centralized exchange and then lower the feed price to make some debt position margin called and eat the margin called order.

long long ago, this happen a lot in poloniex but now seldom because now a lot big exchanges list BTS so it's not easy to manipulate the feed price.

OK, so you are trying to create a solution to the problem that doesn't exist/is small/is improbable.

it's clear that today BTS's falling down is not so related to BTC, BTC fell down slowly today, and the lowest price even do not touch yesterday's lowest price.

it's clear that the BTS's chart is somehow independent, clearly that some shorters find the chance and attack accuratelly.

it's a pity that now it's still so easy for shorters to attack BTS.

BTS need to evolve rapidly to discourage shorting, one price feeding relevangt suggestion is here

"it's not easy to manipulate the feed price" vs "it's a pity that now it's still so easy for shorters to attack BTS"... I'm confused now, is it easy or not?

General Discussion / Re: review the drastic fall
« on: August 09, 2018, 11:21:46 am »
what we want is just to avoid the price maunipulation from outside DEX.

Who/how can manipulate the price from outside of DEX?

General Discussion / Re: review the drastic fall
« on: August 09, 2018, 11:20:41 am »
some factor play the key role to trigger the drastic fall, it is the big debt position.

after the 719 hard fork, target CR feature is enabled, however, unfortunately, GUI does not support this new feature until after the drastic fall.

some big debt position, including mine, are margin called at the begining of the fall, and quickly lead to drastic fall.

if the big debt position could have set target CR, things would be much better, as we can see, in other time, the BTS price change slowly.

so is the cowork of OMO+ spring fund to support the price make sense?  yes, even now I think it make sense, but the problem is that we under evaluate the impact of big debt positions without target CR setting...

Assuming that target collateral ratio is implemented as designed and doesn't contain bugs, it should not influence the price in any way. It's just a nice feature for big debt positions so that they are partially protected.

E.g. there are two big positions called (2 mil bitUSD and 1 mil. bitUSD in this order). A buyer with 0.5 mil bitUSD places an order to buy BTS.

Before hard fork, buyer gets what he wants and two positons will be still called (1.5 mil bitUSD and 1 mil bitUSD in this order no matter what CR these two positions have - a bug).

After hard for, buyer gets what he wants and two positons will be still called (1.5 mil bitUSD and 1 mil bitUSD, order depends on new CRs that are counted immediately after order is filled).

Optionally, both debt position owners can set target collateral ratio which could effectively protect the first one but it has no effect on market price - this only depends on buyers and sellers.

Committee should set "target collateral ratio" immediately.

Openledger / Re: Open.Eos gateway down?
« on: July 30, 2018, 08:07:37 am »
From their helpdesk couple of days ago:

Unfortunately, now  EOS gateway is closed. And there is no opportunity to make any deposit or withdrawal transactions.

We understand your feelings about this situation, please accept our apologies.   
Our team is trying to deal with all issues as soon as possible. We will inform the community when all works are done and gateway is open again.

All news you can find here

Sorry for inconvenience.

Paliboy, are you suggesting unwinding prior accounts or making account names renewable on a going-forward basis?

It should be as non-destructive as possible, we can't just take account names from people.

I don't think we should be touching accounts. They work fine as they are. Just increase fees there because people make more accounts than they need (>1.1m accounts created for 30k active users). Faucet improvements in account creation would help. Large number of accounts also puts unneeded strain on the chain.

Large account creation income does not mean it's a profitable operation. It means that the ratio of fees / op is wrong and that other ops are much cheaper than they should be.

I completely agree that we shouldn't touch accounts as long as there are other ideas to increase income.

Committee asset fee income != reserve pool. I will gladly entertain the suggestion that escrow workers come to an agreement with the committee so that they can always trade worker pay BTS to bitUSD or bitCNY at a fair price if the market doesn't provide enough liquidity. I will not accept treating fee income as part of the reserve pool though.

What do you suggest to do with this income if committee doesn't agree with escrow workers on fair price?

It's not asset creation that brings in a lot of funds but rather asset issuance (as gateways transfer UIA IOUs in and out). That is a fee that should probably be not raised (or even lowered) as it should not be such a big part of the reserve pool income and it is also a large cost gateways need to cover (by setting higher market fees). So I would gladly lower their costs there if that means agreeing to lower market fees.

I misunderstood this income. I agree that asset issuance fees should stay low.

1) I agree with asset fees on USD/CNY, I would rather use these fund directly to fund worker than to trade
2) totally agree that the network should get bigger share, probably gradually adjusted (e.g. 10 per cent points with every hard fork, target being something between 50% and 80% for network)

I'll copy my Steemit reply to clockwork's post here:

Since account creation and asset creation brings most of the fees, why not to leverage that first?

1. let's start with assets, switch to pricing model similar to domain names... asset creation fee pays it for e.g. 1 year, then you need to renew, assets are being create mainly by businesses so it wouldn't annoy ordinary users; some safety measures would be necessary so that e.g. you cannot "steal" an asset name that issuer forgot to renew; what to do with prefixed assets etc.
2. decouple private keys and account names... similar to first point, human-readable account name is a service that you need to renew annually; users need to be able to get their funds back after their name expires

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 12