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 - Digital Lucifer

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16
1
And P2P Lending is not so unknown to Authorities btw:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer_lending#Government_protection

So, let's do it properly and introduce really big boom to the world without any risk to the future of BitShares.

2
To clarify, the "bombastic" was really rather meant as "fantastic" .. just a little more .. the desired meaning got lost in translation.

Secondly, I do share some of DL's concerns but also don't see why this should become an issue for either BBF, or MOVE insitute. None of them technically "operate" the BitShares blockchain (and fact, it's unclear who really does). Similar to how the UI should IMHO be blocked to US IPs, the feature for lending should also be blocked from IPs of countries that prohibit lending. That at least should be clear to anyone hosting a frontend that allows using that particular feature of bitshares - but again, this is new territory from legal point of view and we simply don't know what regulators and law enforcement will think.
To me, it is quite easy to logically claim neither the owner of bitshares.org, nor of bitshares.foundation has anything to do with the offers of the bitshares blockchain (which runs entirely independent). It's like laming Mozilla for providing software to browse the dark net. Not their fault, really.
It is different though for those that "host" a wallet/ui. At least I can see problems come up to them for providing an "entrance".

Ultimately, we need to distinguish service offerings of bitshares.org from services offered by the BitShares Blockchain.
Also, the owner of bitshares.org has not sole authority over the BitShares Blockchain and couldn't even prevent them from doing things that bitshares.org might disagree with, like offering a lending market. Something similar could be said about CFDs which are to my knowledge prohibited in the U.S. too.

(not a lawyer)

My apologies if I did, but I never meant to disturb freedom of BitShares blockchain as a tech, but we are talking finance and sticking BitShares BSIP next to it, so yeah, some limitations according to some laws have to be included in this, just for BitShares to avoid problems from legal aspect and to be clear that decentralized is not lawless. It's just way of how the tech works. On the other hand, not seeing happy businesses promoting/pushing things without proper due diligence on it. I don't expect core dev to run into the legalities over code he is writing, but I do expect that we do. Authorities are pulling knots tighter and tighter and even CEXes are complying without question. Poking the bears with ignorance of our own will not end well for anyone, that's a fact.

On the other hand, we don't represent or decide what will happen on the BitShares blockchain (you are 100% right), but we are both (BBF and Move Institute) publicly available to the authorities to be reached (at least questioned on topic BitShares). I don't see how they can reach anyone else on blockchain unless specific phone/address/registration number is on the website - more twist of my own towards that frontend concern that we are bearing as owner of bitshares.org, hence the clear Titles on contact page for both BBF and Move.

And to repeat one more time, completely supporting such improvement to the core, just done properly and not rushed with like BSIP42 ending up as a drama. We have 0 experience in Margin Lending, 0 experience how it works on the BLOCKCHAIN and we experienced it on CEXes with KYC regulation and liquidity, so it's not really a good metric to compare with having in mind current activities on the chain or our legal status (no legal owner, no company, no legal definition - as you said even regulators can't classify us, but still can prosecute us and sometimes they don't even need a reason and we've seen it with our own eyes even around here).

P.S. If anyone have any problem with my attitude around here, let's be clear on one thing. We've got bitshares.org domain in March 2018 (long before any workers or funding by blockchain happened). If we were to fuck things up, could ride up on a horse with CNX, do a proper hostile take-over and pull all the products away as bitshares.org to privately hosted/owned and just because bitshares has no owner, nobody could do fuck about it, apart from forking off to something different than BitShares (all the exchanges and websites are having listed that domain). Was pulling my teeth and BORROWING money around with no interest to push it through, to make it legit through non-profit partner, to build it to something more and to survive all the craziness that I've personally gotten from it. So, if you wanna pick your finger at me and dive into discussion, keep in mind my history, amount of time and resources that I've involved in BitShares exclusively and legality around it and then stop right there, because I'm here no enemy for the future of the blockchain or any of my associates are. I'm not centralizing things, I'm trying to legalize things on the front-end so we don't poke the bear and be the one who remains truly decentralized, but LEGIT in the industry for the long-term.

3
Hi all,

BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" is getting closer and there remains a few key points to address. One is important and warrants a thorough discussion is about how to determine 'the price' of the asset being lent relative to the collateral held and market price of the collateral vs the lent asset.

Firstly a lender defines the markets in which he is willing for the borrower to use his lent asset. Therefore the lender assumes risk and takes responsibility for the liquidity, pricing and legitimacy of those markets. The risk for the lender is he may not get back the amount lent in the case of a catastrophic collapse in price of the the lent asset vs the asset the borrower buys. Discussion on margin call mechanics aside (which I think was covered well in Github) the main point for community input now is on 'the price'- what is it, where is referenced to and the best method for insuring a robust pricing for these margin loans.

A price is required for many of the key operations required for BSIP70. You need a price to determine the collateral ratio of the borrowers collateral vs the the size of the loan. You need to monitor the price for a margin call event and you need to execute a limit order in the case of a margin call at some price in order buy back enough of the loan to repay the lender. An accurate price is needed in all these cases, we will call this a 'reference price'. Lets examine how similar lending and margin markets have existed on other platforms:

Bitfinex: Bitfinex has the most similar proposed margin trading and lending system to BSIP70. Bitfinex choose what markets can be used for lending so they limit the issue of exposure to illiquid markets. The Bitfinex price they use for the loans is based on the 'Last price' in that market. That means that the last executed trade represents the pricing of that asset pair. This is a simple and direct method of determining the price.

Bitmex: Bitmex, while not employing the same P2P CFD style of margin trading as BSIP70 still needs a price for their margin mechanisms. Bitmex use an external price feed of the bitcoin price relative to their self selected set of coins they list. They use multiple datapoints to ensure the robustness of their pricing feed based off the prices of several exchanges.

Other solutions: Perhaps a Middle price could be used which is = ((highest bid + lowest ask) / 2). However we would need to carefully think of the implications of this and how to game it. I have some initial thoughts but open to ideas here.

I think the best solution is just to use the last price for that particular market pairing, yes it is open to someone dumping price and forcing margin calls but the lender takes that into consideration when he allows his asset to be traded on that market knowing the risk is that he might not receive  what he lent in return. A conservative lender might only be willing to lend to high volume and liquidity markets to limit his risk of a giant margin call killing the last price. Also, even if this were the case, if I knew there was a market with a high chance of this happen this is an excellent opportunity for market makers. If there was alot of margin calls on one market I as a market maker would place bids 10% below market price knowing ill be able to scoop up cheap coins in the event of the margincall and sell them on another exchange for a price 10% higher using a cross exchange arb like via DEXbot.

What are the best methods in order to establish a reference price that is robust that you would like to see? Did I miss any potential implementations?

Logic/Concept - Support.

 3 things I might add/define better to this above, before it goes to reality:

1) Markets with no liquidity are a big no-no. Currently only liquid market on the entire blockchain seems to by BTS:BitCNY if we are to compare liquidity with Bitfinex, Bitmex or even Poloniex and take them as fine working example (they do provide these services for quite a while without problems).
2) For UIA price should still be determined by 3rd source and witnesses should be doing minimum 2 feeds for that contract. Marketplace gives Lender opportunity to rig the debt over the period of time since amount of return is in the same contract not related to any pair of it. If for example open.USDT or Spark.HKD, by 2 fiat sources against contracts used for lending.
3) bitshares-core software should determine on its base level of asset are markets liquid enough or not, not the Lender. e.g. bsip70_enable_marketminimum_volume = 500,000.00000 BTS


Anything else would be potential manipulation.

Chee®s

1. Firstly its up to the lender to set the markets you want to lend to, Bitshares is decentralised and everyone should be free to lend to whatever they want its not up to someone to decide what people can and cant do, in this case the lender assumes the risk if they allow a borrower to take their money.

Secondly "Liquidity" is only important when referenced to how much you are loaning. For example if the market cap of a particular coin is $10000 and you are loaning $1, just because the market cap is not high relative to Bitcoin, the fact you are lending a small amount does not present any high risk to that market and because the market cap is low it can actually be difficult to find lenders/traders willing to engage in that market. So I dont see this as a concern TBH.

2. Not sure what you mean here but lets address additional price feeds. If we require additional price feeds there are a few concerns:

A ) Whos going to provide them and for what coins?
B ) This is additional computational burden on the network and we dont have a large number of witnesses as it is
C ) Whos feed is correct? Will we use median values for a number of witnesses? Then we will also need to design new voting principles for price feeders for lending.
D ) Last but most importantly it limits who and what you can lend and trade. If there is no price feed its no longer possible to margin on that market. People should be free to lend some small cap coin for some other small cap coin without being dictated to what they can and cant do because a small set of 10 random people in the world dont want to provide feeds for their coin. This massively limits this BSIP to probably only 0.001% of Bitshares markets. We want to make this BSIP for anyone to be able to get leverage and earn a return on anything.

3. Volume is not a good indicator and easily faked. Also, for UIA markets one can easily trade 1 BTS for 1S**TCOIN @ price of $100000. Then execute 2 trades daily in order to get a volume of $200000 which magically enables them go margin on whatever. Whereas maybe there is a small cap coin with a real market but is below some artificial threshold which is honest, but is not able to get margin access because its not above some arbitrary value. Also it should not be up to core or some individuals to determine what you can trade or not. Also for UIA/UIA makets there is no BTS reference so not possible to get a BTS volume as benchmark even if there was it would not be representative of real BTS because UIA/UIA are easily faked whereas BTS/UIA actually requires someone to pay real value to exchange them.

1. BitShares is a brand and technology that has LEGAL reponsibility in the real world. Regarding blockchain, BBF, regarding bitshares.org Move Institute. If Authorities are to knock someone's doors for BitShares, that would be first 2 to knock on. You ? Just a 3rd party company utilizing free and decentralized BitShares blockchain platform without written agreement that you bare no responsibility towards actions that you're doing on BitShares blockchain. For a Money Remittance business, you're far off the grid with your comments if you want real main-stream.

In some countries you know that Lending is against the law ? Shall we disable API access to those countries just so anyone can become a Lender and start making profits from the blockchain without any concern on the consequences that may happen ? "Decentralized" you can look up in dictionary, same as you did for "bombastic" and come back here to tell me what decentralized has to do with lawless.

2.
A) Concern who will do price feed ? Up to the lender who was interest on return to employee more witnesses and even pay them privately for price feed if needed.
B) Nothing computational is happening, apart from regular price feed added to another token through a 3rd party independent script between blockchain and 3rd party (as now).
C) If you wanna Lend Spark.HKD and re-claim it in real HKD at your offices, wouldn't be fair at local currency/exchange (fiat) to be borrowed ?
D) Yes, ofcourse it is, otherwise everybody would be having bad debts and everything would go to shit, how here that in real world. Limits are nothing bad IMO. (look what BSIP42 did with no limits)

3.

Creating a volume and price feed combined would be exactly too hard to maintain and Lender would not be diving it into it, if he is not up for a real business. Borrower would not dive inside to unstable/unknown conditions.

Such markets/assets should be always and only issued with multi-sig on committee, otherwise we will move in from gray to very black area of crypto industry.

Chee®s

P.S. I said, support fully just in terms that lending should have limits by the blockchain not by the lender. If you think that's not fair, then you're far from decentralized. Lender dictating rules is very centralized process with no legal process or responsibility to it. Better to compute and calculate rather than trust, hence we are still looking for trustless gateways/solutions.

4
Quick update:

I am currently in discussions with the University of Nicosia to potentially accept BTS / bitAssets as tuition fee payment for their courses if we partner up join the IFF.

Can you please create again post on what are all the benefits (by points) for these 200,000.00 USD potential worker ? (What does include, because its not just Decentralized event anymore)

Chee®s

5
wow ... bombastic proposal

??

Definition Bombastic: marked by or given to speech or writing that is given exaggerated importance by artificial or empty means

You think BSIP70 is exaggerated or lacking? Please let us know so we can improve it ;)

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/170#issuecomment-503525518

6
Hi all,

BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" is getting closer and there remains a few key points to address. One is important and warrants a thorough discussion is about how to determine 'the price' of the asset being lent relative to the collateral held and market price of the collateral vs the lent asset.

Firstly a lender defines the markets in which he is willing for the borrower to use his lent asset. Therefore the lender assumes risk and takes responsibility for the liquidity, pricing and legitimacy of those markets. The risk for the lender is he may not get back the amount lent in the case of a catastrophic collapse in price of the the lent asset vs the asset the borrower buys. Discussion on margin call mechanics aside (which I think was covered well in Github) the main point for community input now is on 'the price'- what is it, where is referenced to and the best method for insuring a robust pricing for these margin loans.

A price is required for many of the key operations required for BSIP70. You need a price to determine the collateral ratio of the borrowers collateral vs the the size of the loan. You need to monitor the price for a margin call event and you need to execute a limit order in the case of a margin call at some price in order buy back enough of the loan to repay the lender. An accurate price is needed in all these cases, we will call this a 'reference price'. Lets examine how similar lending and margin markets have existed on other platforms:

Bitfinex: Bitfinex has the most similar proposed margin trading and lending system to BSIP70. Bitfinex choose what markets can be used for lending so they limit the issue of exposure to illiquid markets. The Bitfinex price they use for the loans is based on the 'Last price' in that market. That means that the last executed trade represents the pricing of that asset pair. This is a simple and direct method of determining the price.

Bitmex: Bitmex, while not employing the same P2P CFD style of margin trading as BSIP70 still needs a price for their margin mechanisms. Bitmex use an external price feed of the bitcoin price relative to their self selected set of coins they list. They use multiple datapoints to ensure the robustness of their pricing feed based off the prices of several exchanges.

Other solutions: Perhaps a Middle price could be used which is = ((highest bid + lowest ask) / 2). However we would need to carefully think of the implications of this and how to game it. I have some initial thoughts but open to ideas here.

I think the best solution is just to use the last price for that particular market pairing, yes it is open to someone dumping price and forcing margin calls but the lender takes that into consideration when he allows his asset to be traded on that market knowing the risk is that he might not receive  what he lent in return. A conservative lender might only be willing to lend to high volume and liquidity markets to limit his risk of a giant margin call killing the last price. Also, even if this were the case, if I knew there was a market with a high chance of this happen this is an excellent opportunity for market makers. If there was alot of margin calls on one market I as a market maker would place bids 10% below market price knowing ill be able to scoop up cheap coins in the event of the margincall and sell them on another exchange for a price 10% higher using a cross exchange arb like via DEXbot.

What are the best methods in order to establish a reference price that is robust that you would like to see? Did I miss any potential implementations?

Logic/Concept - Support.

 3 things I might add/define better to this above, before it goes to reality:

1) Markets with no liquidity are a big no-no. Currently only liquid market on the entire blockchain seems to by BTS:BitCNY if we are to compare liquidity with Bitfinex, Bitmex or even Poloniex and take them as fine working example (they do provide these services for quite a while without problems).
2) For UIA price should still be determined by 3rd source and witnesses should be doing minimum 2 feeds for that contract. Marketplace gives Lender opportunity to rig the debt over the period of time since amount of return is in the same contract not related to any pair of it. If for example open.USDT or Spark.HKD, by 2 fiat sources against contracts used for lending.
3) bitshares-core software should determine on its base level of asset are markets liquid enough or not, not the Lender. e.g. bsip70_enable_marketminimum_volume = 500,000.00000 BTS


Anything else would be potential manipulation.

Chee®s

7
It looks great man, really. I love the minimalist ui, my grandma would be proud :)
 
The black bar across the top seems unneeded though.
  • My computer shows me the date, so that is not needed imo.
  • Privacy Policy should be at the bottom in the footer.
  • The Register/Login link should be (a BEET avatar or button/icon) in the top-right corner, replacing the share icon that is there now. The share buttons are already on the left side by each article and that is sufficient imo (ie: news.bitshares.org/bitshares-org-marketing/).
  • The "News" link at the top is redundant imo. Clicking on the logo in the top-left corner takes you to the main news page.
As for the social media links you have there already, I think Bitshares committee should control the accounts/keys for sites OTHER than than the censorship-laden facebook, twitter and youtube. Register the accounts now please before some squatter/sniper grabs them. For example:
 

 
Other than that, it looks great man, I am so happy to see us marketing ourselves like this! :)

As far as we agreed on terms last year even before worker, we are just owner of bitshares.org domain and reputation arounds it. So all the social media is created for bitsharesorg (bitshares is sadly taken everywhere, and not many owners are reachable/known even bitshares as handle should be owned by committee - i agree). Time cant be reverted back so we have to move on with what we have. I'll ask Ross do do list similar to yours on what is our current social media (newly registered for purpose of bitshares.org)

Rest - on point, definitely will remove top black header. Privacy Policy will be nested at maybe new footer, will play around with demo. Waiting for votes now on poll few days :)

Emails nearly done and operational, so will buzz you in TG to recreate account :)

Chee®s

8
General Discussion / Re: market fee sharing setting for smartcoins
« on: June 15, 2019, 02:34:23 pm »
Don't need a glasses or lens, i think all of you need a glasses or lens in your mind.

Chee®s

Not support.

Short-sight.

I guess language barrier. What original author meant was "Yes im short-sighted and i can't read properly what is written here".

Please acquire glasses or lens for your sight issues.


Chee®s

Do you have better/more reasonable suggestion to the market fees and referral program to offer, so we can extend our vision that is missing ?

CheeÞs

9
General Discussion / Re: market fee sharing setting for smartcoins
« on: June 15, 2019, 01:42:55 pm »
Not support.

Short-sight.

I guess language barrier. What original author meant was "Yes im short-sighted and i can't read properly what is written here".

Please acquire glasses or lens for your sight issues.


Chee®s

10
General Discussion / Re: market fee sharing setting for smartcoins
« on: June 15, 2019, 01:32:54 pm »
That makes a lot of sense. Then every lifetime member would be paying actually 0.02% market fee, while upgrading to LTM would be already incentive to trade more.

Would be supporting this, personally its beneficial for both blockchain and users/traders and it does gives them a choice/option - which they don't have at most of other trading platforms.
Also, addition to this would be request to the Committee to lower Vesting Withdrawal Fee which is currently 50 BTS.


Chee®s

11
What about different subdomain for different language eg. Chinese and Russian?

If that poll see "Yes" as a winner and we proceed with WPML (Multi-language), domains will be configured during setup

e.g.
news.bitshares.org/cn/ ->> cn.news.bitshares.org
news.bitshares.org/ru/ ->> ru.news.bitshares.org

And so on.

12
Dear Community and Holders,

In 2018, bitshares.org (Move/APT) got a worker approved, well funded to re-organize, re-brand and rebuild from scratch, together with rest of the ecosystem, all services and visibility around bitshares.org main website and its subs (e.g. news.bitshares.org) for more stable/professional reputation of BitShares.

Issue of the past:

Old bitshares.org through entire history had permalink Blog/News defined as a link to private blog hosted on GitHub from Daniel Larimer ( https://bytemaster.github.io ) itself, and it was fairly unmaintained since 2016. Being connected to another dead domain with no content change + completely wrong and centralized branding about single individual instead of actual brand/Community of BitShares, we had to remove that link/connection somewhere in December 2018. In order for Google and rest of the search indexing engines to forget the wrong branding and not proper structure of BitShares.org it had to be done.

Solution:

You can read more about it here :)

https://news.bitshares.org/bitshares-org-marketing/

Website is also featuring in sidebar
- Online radio stream from radio.bitshares.org (Future home for Hangouts and potentially more).
- Latest forum discussions from bitsharestalk.org
- Tags for articles within news.bitshares.org

Updates/Status:

- Core/Tong Shen published and released first article few days ago. Another short update is coming from Core team :)
- KenCode was helping out for testing of new account creation and we encountered problem with email server, since php mailer will be defaulted to off (prevent spam and reputation issues on the sender side) - FIX ETA: 2 hours
- Login/Registration is unavailable until email issue above is sorted.
- Privacy Policy is according to global rules and regulations on publishing.
- Google Analytics account under same owner of bitshares.org property is integrated.
- Highest results achieved in website optimization according to Google PageSpeed and YahooSlow available here.
- Highest scores on rich content articles for readibility and seo according to Yoast ( and as well one of the requirements on future articles to be published - in Layman's terms, professionalism/order and quality instead of quantity and chaos )
 

- Protection of content by local publisher in Thailand by doing re-publishing and translation to Thai of selected news.bitshares.org content.
- Social cross-posting currently operational is Facebook, Steem, Twitter, Telegram (Community group since I had admin there and can't add bot an admin for now in other group, will request access)
- Social cross-posting currently being bug fixed/development/api approval Medium, Instagram, Linkedin (have organization admin), WhaleShares (lack of entire api structure from steempress original plugin, working on a fork).
- If we see 'Yes' dominating in poll, part of funds will be designated for proper WPML license, structure and organization for people around ecosystem to translate the content and be rewarded through bounties.

For authors, Public Guidelines on how to post, what to do/not to do and requirements on content quality coming up soon.

Please take a look on the news.bitshares.org itself, vote on a poll and throw in some feedback through replies :)

On behalf of bitshares.org and team behind the worker,

Chee®s

13
????!!!! how about 10%?
we need to raise fees to 0.1% again!

I agree. Think simple and small with just basic math.

Most of our regular users are attending DEXBot and beside CNY and few gateways around, its all how we are doing our market making.

Now set example, all those little guys (including myself) with $1000 or $2000 at tops for trading, setting $40-$100 orders would be ending up broken by the end of the day with 0.1% fee if market is not volatile for 3-5% in our favor.

100 USD 1 order
0.1% fee = 0.10 USD

10 orders = 1 USD.
100 orders = 10 USD.

profit per order on smaller spreads 0.003% if lucky.

I don't see math there unless we have REALLY LIQUIDATED markets so people can move for profits through it.

But I do agree that such move would be great incentive for reserve pool income and bigger players around.

14
Technical Support / Re: Emergency! help help help
« on: June 14, 2019, 01:38:43 pm »
Was this sorted, can we lock and move ?


Chee®s

15
General Discussion / Re: Is Bitshares still growing?
« on: June 14, 2019, 01:31:19 pm »
I've been off few days, and I know for a fact that Abit and Clockwork are busy as hell with more important stuff.

Locked will be removed tomorrow, rest across forums is mostly cleaned/banned.


Chee®s

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 16