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 - pc

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 97
So if the witness can get the "fair" price from the CEX? half of the witness give the lower feed price than the real price, the witnees think they give the "fair" price, can they prove it?

You cannot prove something to be "fair" because "fair" is subjective. Witnesses can explain how they calculate their feeds. Some will find the result fair, some won't.

premium is not a fixed value, 1.8% is the value in these 2 days, 4 days before, the premium is about 0.5%. you can only get this value in the market.

MSSR has impact on premium but it does not determine the premium.

The effect I described applies only when BTS price is going down relative to CNY. If the BTS price fluctuates, the premium will fluctuate as well and can vanish completely if BTS is in an uptrend.

If I were a trader and saw that margin calls happen regularly, I would place my sell orders 2% above the price at which the least collateralized short position is margin called, for an instant 2% profit. If I wanted to buy CNY on the DEX I would place my order 2% above that price, because otherwise I have no chance of getting it filled.

Thus, margin calls and feed price and MSSR all interact with each other. The DEX price is driven by margin calls, which are in turn driven by the feed price and MSSR.

If you reduce the MSSR to 1% the premium will also go down to 1%. Does changing MSSR change the "fair" price of bitCNY? I think not, but according to your logic the fair price would then be 1% higher than it is now, not 2%.

On an external exchange you don't have that effect, because the external exchange is not influenced by margin calls in the way that the DEX is. The result is that the external trade price is much more natural than the DEX price, and so can more reasonably be called a "fair" price.

I don't care what cause the premium, the fact is the premium is there.

You can't repair it if you don't find out why it's broken.

And IMO it is quite obvious why it's broken: lists over 200 short positions with a CR of less than 1.8. Whenever BTS goes down a tiny bit in relation to CNY, all of these get margin called, which eats all orders up to MSSR from the market.

Also, almost all of them have set a target CR of 1.75, so it's clear that these short positions are *deliberately* kept at such a low collateralization.

Fiddling with the feed price is not going to change any of this. Effectively you are trying to re-apply BSIP-42, with the same reasoning, the same justification and probably also the same outcome.

If they can't find the “fair” feed price, they should be blamed as they accepted the work.

Like I said, in the presence of skewed external markets there is no such thing as *the correct price*. What you call fair may be unfair on others.

The reason for the premium is that (once again) shorters are deliberately keeping their positions in margin call territory, which means all orders below MSSR get eaten up by margin calls. Using the DEX price as the feed in this situation would be completely wrong, because the margin calls *define* the DEX price in terms of feed price and MSSR. There is your feedback loop.

Blaming this on the witnesses is short-sighted and unfair IMO.

Just because they have a nice graphic with many little arrows pointing everywhere doesn't mean it's going to work better than what we have.

I'm not against experimenting either, within reasonable bounds. All I'm saying is that

a) using the DEX price for the feed is dangerous because such feedback loops tend to oscillate, and
b) there is no such thing as a "correct" feed price when external markets are skewed due to political boundaries, so it is pointless to argue about it.

Using the DEX price for the feed creates a feedback loop, which is inherently dangerous.

The real source of the problem is that the markets are skewed, and arbitrage is difficult because of political boundaries. The consequence is that there is no single "correct" price. We've had that discussion before.

IMO under these circumstances it is OK to increase the settlement offset, and perhaps also accept a higher premium by increasing MSSR. The resulting spread could cover the market differences and protect both sides.

General Discussion / Re: Introduce CEX in governance?
« on: April 10, 2019, 05:57:35 am »
I think they should declare that only those BTS owner who give out the vote power can get airdrop.

Actually they do mention this explicitly in their terms. You have to actually read them to see it of course. :-)

Originally, bitRUB was supposed to be the on-chain counterpart for RUB. bitRUB was globally settled soon after the chain started. Since there was no way to revive it back then, someone created bitRUBLE as a replacement.

Now that bitRUB has been revived we have two bitassets for bitRUBLE, which is unfortunate of course. It's up to the users which asset they use, and up to the feed producers which asset(s) they feed.

General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: April 04, 2019, 06:14:16 am »
The intent of BSIP-18 is not to allow people to do something good for the community. Its intent is to provide a mechanism for revival, and incentives to use it. This has worked out nicely.

Bidding "at the last minute" makes sense, economically, if you want to acquire as much from the pool as possible. Just like on ebay, bidding early only drives the price up. IMO this behaviour is neither benevolent nor malevolent. It can be called selfish, but that's OK - we're acting in a market here, and participants are expected to act selfish. That's just how things work.

Note that the bidders has also accepted a significant risk with this investment. If the BTS price drops again, he might lose all of it.

General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: April 03, 2019, 04:34:11 pm »
I guess it's hard to make you happy.

How could a benevolent whale participate (if such a person exists!) even if he or she wanted to?

Let the whales work...they could have easily remained on the sidelines during the bitUSD revival auction and let minnows and others participate...but they could not resist flexing their muscles

General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: April 02, 2019, 05:55:31 pm »
FTR - BitUSD has been revived a couple of hours ago.

General Discussion / Re: bitusd peg
« on: March 30, 2019, 09:06:18 am »
So the only real incentive to bid is for quicker revival of bitUSD?

While under GS, bitUSD is backed by (pegged to) a fixed amount of BTS. After revival, it will be pegged to USD again, and it will be backed by a variable amount of BTS. You can expect the bitUSD internal market price to drop sharply from slightly below MCR to around 1 USD.

This is also the point where the bidder is rewarded. By bidding successfully, you "buy" a position consisting of debt and equally valued collateral. Immediately after revival, the debt is worth much less, which means your position gains value. The price you pay for this is that both your bid and the bought collateral are locked up, until you pay back the debt.

General Discussion / Re: Add "close long" feature?
« on: March 28, 2019, 08:08:29 pm »
If your buffer is small you can do this repeatedly (even within a single transaction).

If you've already been margin called you can only get out by paying more than MSSR. This would have the effect of increasing the premium, and it would use up the available collateral more quickly. Not sure if either is desirable.

General Discussion / Re: Add "close long" feature?
« on: March 28, 2019, 03:41:10 pm »
Note that this can be done client-side with no risk for margin call, at least in the case where you sell into the order book (i. e. as a taker only). Just wrap the required operations into a single transaction and mark the sell order as "fill-or-kill".

Technical Support / Re: Account Hijacked
« on: March 25, 2019, 01:47:21 pm »
Please provide links to what has been said and done for the sake of information.

There are several posts in this forum where it is discussed. This thread here is almost 4 weeks old, for example.
There are several articles on steem that talk about this, for example
It was/is discussed in various telegram groups.
It was/is discussed on discord.

The UI has made approving proposals a 3-step-process, see post from Stefan above. Unfortunatly, people have been taught for years that whenever their computer pops up a box they MUST NOT READ IT and the MUST CLICK ON OK.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 97