If you are talking about OPEN.BTC this might be relevant https://blog.openledger.info/2017/12/06/due-to-the-maintenance-works-deposits-and-withdrawals-are-temporarily-unavailable/

Apparently openledger has deposit-withdrawals issues currently. I am sure that they will soon be resolved though..After all this happens to all centralized exchanges from time to time and usually when we don't want this to happen..

I never thought I would say this but maybe bring back Brian Page? I din't like the way he left suddenly the community but he was a sweet talker.. Maybe if he comes back with specific worker proposal and specific goal and timeframe...Don't know if he is interested though since if he was he would have come by now..

https://www.coindesk.com/kik-might-move-its-ico-tokens-to-a-new-blockchain/

Does anyone is in contact with them to tell them about bitshares?

I am curious how witnesses get their feeds... The only centralized exchange trading bts is poloniex and  AEX.
Normally the feed should be according to the weighted volume of each exchange including the internal DEX trading. I hope you do this.

Now that Poloniex has issues with bts withdrawals and deposits I believe feed SHOULD NOT take into account at all the price from Poloniex until the issue is resolved. If you guys take feeds from Polo now then this is extremely dangerous!!!

I can not comment on AEX yet..

Feed should be endogenous and not exogenous now until polo fix its problems and should be based from the internal DEX trading imho..

In regards to this proposal I have not decided if it should have been approved but my initial thought says that force settlement should not have been raised by 5% and instead the feed should have been adjusted accordingly..

Finally, does anyone has an update of what is the status with Polo and when the issue is expected to be resolved?
 

definitely!! I remember talking a couple of years ago to a colleague who wanted some bitcny and then when we checked the premium he had to pay (which was like 5% not even 10%-20% like in btc) he was laughing and ofcourse didn't proceed..Any attempts to convince him that bitassets are superior to fiat, more secure in terms of storage, he is his own bank, no counterparty risk, no capital controls etc etc where fruitless..

I haven't decided about this worker proposal but I recognize the importance to be fully compliant if we want bts to become the dominant decentralized exchange.

What I don't understand is why not someone copy the whole bitshares code and create "bitshares Compliant" . The "bitshare compliant" can sharedrop on a 1:1 basis the "BTS compliant token" to "BTS" to those who register and disclose their ID and do all KYC necessary and can prove ownership that they are the owners of the bts address they register within the new "bitshares compliant" network.

This way we will have BTS which operate as usual and  "bts compliant" that operate under full KYC and compliance.

BTS shareholder that chose to disclose their ID will benefit since they will receive free "bts compliant token". The market will then decide the price of each bts and "bts compliant". It is a win win for everyone.

Maybe I am talking nonsense just thinking out loud here..

When I got margin called in bitusd I paid 10% above feed. Why? I remember that we have adjusted the parameters in the past so margin calls are executed at 1% above feed price and I remember that this was a good decision since shorters created bitassets since the fee in margin call was only 1%.

When did we go back to the 10%? Can we go back to the 1% please?