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 - bitcrab

Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ... 129
1036
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 07, 2018, 04:18:03 am »
For instance, according to Peter Conrad, the current situation may well
be achieved by using the actualy/fair price feed and a short squeeze
protection ratio of 0%.

Minor correction: I think that with MSSR=0 the fake price feed could be kept *closer* to the real price, not that the feed price would always have to represent the fair price exactly.

under BSIP42, in bear market, maybe setting MSSR=100% will help to make the feed price more closer to market price, but in bull market, it will make the feed price farer away from the market price, as it encourage borrowing even when the smartcoin is over supplied, so need bigger negative feedback.

I think it's the best choice to move forward the MCR based solution to get the purpose of  "feed price reflect the real market price".

1037
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 07, 2018, 03:58:40 am »
Just because people do not use force settlement does not mean that the
ability to do so provides value.
IMHO, force settlement (I settle bitCNY for its collateral) is a core
feature that provides a floor to the valuation of bitCNY.

Unless of course, you are talking about the 5% offset. Of course, if it
doesn't effect the value, nor it's liquidity, we could as well get rid
of the offset.

if we now reset force settlement offset of bitCNY to 0, it will greatly increase the chance to hurt the bitCNY creators and the whole system.
I haven't found a solution that can enable smartcoin holders to settle in "fair" price but at the same time do not hurt the debt position owners.


I believe we all agree here now.

There have been some options to deal with individual call positions that
go <100%:

* Take call positions that reach <(100+x)% away from users and give it to
  the issuer - effetively a x% penalty for the shorter.
* Allow traders to bid for the call position to provide additional
  collateral in exchange for pro-rata shares of the debt.

And possibly others.
make sense, I am also considering another possibility: possible to integrate the feature to force settlement: enable smartcoin holders to settle the margin call orders with CR<(100%+x) with added penalty to the debt position owners?

I think we all agree here as well. The disagreement lies in the means
that we use to achieve that goal. So far, BSIP42 meant that the price
feed formula is modified.

However, there has been plenty of discussion also instead of faking
the price feed, to use the margin call ratio as well as the short
squeeze protection ratio to provide a similar solution.

For instance, according to Peter Conrad, the current situation may well
be achieved by using the actualy/fair price feed and a short squeeze
protection ratio of 0%. That would lead to margin calls to execute at
the price feed instead of additional penalty of additional 10%. The only
drawback (that might not be one) is that the short protection ratio
cannot be negative. That means that in case there is a margin call
pending in the books, people that want bitUSD will provide a "premium"
to the market to snatch bitUSD from the margin calls.
If this becomes a problem, the price feed could still be "modified", but
at all other times, the price feed would reflect the fair price.
please do not call the current feed price as "faking price feed", BSIP42 just redefined this parameter, if it is confusing to still call it "feed price", I think we can rename it to "guide price" and show in the UI.

just setting MSSR=100% will not get the same result as current setting, as there is no "negative feedback" logic inside.

1038
抱歉,上次回帖时情绪不太对,所以回帖10分钟后就删掉了,未料已经被引用了。

如果是改为调MCR,我是认为需要允许MCR<1的。

按市场逻辑推演,即使出现了MCR<1的情况,市场也会很快自动修正的,因为小于1的抵押率意味着无穷大的杠杆,市场会很快出现大量抵押和买单,提高bitCNY供应,溢价会迅速降低,爆仓单会很快被吃掉,MCR也会很快回归1之上。

所以,出现部分债仓资不抵债的情况不是什么大问题,现在对黑天鹅的处理方式才是大问题。

国外和国内社区对智能货币的定位有些根本上的不同,比如xeroc就说,他并不认为智能货币最需要追求精确锚定和流动性,而是需要保证足额抵押和清算权利。这说明他们还不太有把智能货币做成广为应用的与USDT竞争的稳定币的决心,而是只当做一种简单的保值资产。这方面需要更多的沟通与说服。

不认为这个市场逻辑推演是对的, 市场如果那么容易推演的话, 就不叫市场了.

比如MCR<1, 谁也不能保证抵押出的锚定资产去买BTS, 谁又能保证大家会不会通过这种解套行为都去买BTC或其它内盘资产来避开BTS的继续下跌, 做壁上观?! 毕竟崩盘之下手握最保值的资产是最要紧的。

出现部分资不抵债的债仓的确不是什么大问题, 大问题是如何去解决这些资不抵债的债仓, 靠市场回暖来救显然不行,如果没有确切的应对方案,也无法让市场来信服, 市场中从来没有理性一说.

国外社区的有些观点也并不都是错的, 自由经济与计划经济体制下的成长环境带给我们的惯性思维是相当不同的。

MCR<1意味着杠杆无限大,不需要都去买BTS,一个人来拼命买就可以了,一个BTS抵押就可以买到无穷多。

要是这点都推演不出来,那就别玩了。

怎么就叫靠市场回暖显然不行呢?咋就这么先入为主呢?

没说老外观点错,只是bitUSD相对bitCNY发展滞后一些,一些问题上的认知也相对滞后。

1039
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 03, 2018, 01:42:08 pm »
Thanks @xeroc, I great appreciate your efforts to find the consensus.

First, let’s define the vision of smartcoin,  in my view, it is 1. enough accurate pegging and 2. enough liquidity. based on these smartcoin will seek wildly adoption comparing to USDT.
I think this is already where people may have a different vision.
For me (and others) the core value proposition of bitassets was:
* always fully collateralized
* settlement available to obtain collateral at a "fair" price.

With respect to settlement, the community has already moved from a
settlement at parity 1:1 with the introduction of the settlement
offset to incentivize shorters to increase liquidity.

My feeling is that those optimization criteria (tight pegging & liquidity
vs. backing and settlement) may not work out together, at least not in
the short term.

So I think we have some difference in defining smartcoin.

In my idea, smartcoin is one solution of the “stable coin” concept which are discussed a lot this year, it is designed as a token that has stable value and is easy to get and transfer when one need it, that’s why I emphasize pegging accuracy and liquidity.

It seems in your idea, smartcoin is more like something that can help people to store value, to hedge the risk in cryptocurrency market.

Let me tell 2 stories.

1.AEX and bigone has listed bitCNY and use bitCNY as the base currency in their exchange, but several months ago they removed bitCNY as base currency because “bitCNY is in serious shortage and very high premium, difficult to get, users are confused and very unsatisfactory”.

2.in August 1971, U.S. President Richard Nixon announced to remove the dollar peg to gold, which had been fixed at $35 an ounce. the Bretton Woods System collapsed.

I’d like to say, before we discussed BSIP42, bitCNY is at a similar dilemma as USD in 1971 - the supply of gold is limited, but the demand to USD increased rapidly, a big conflict comes and US cannot maintain the $35 an ounce gold price.

bitCNY(surely also bitUSD and bitEUR) is potential to get widely adopted, but before BSIP42 the supply of biCNY depend on the price of BTS, that’s why each time bear market comes, bitCNY was squeezed out quickly and lead to very serious shortage and very high premium, at the same time, continuous margin calling bring many users to nightmare.

Maybe in initial design smartcoin is more like just one asset to store value and hedge risk. But if we hope smart coin be widely used in many CEXs as base currency, and in international payments, we have to review and update the design to guarantee the pegging accuracy and liquidity, otherwise smart coins can only  be used by a small community and have no chance to let the whole world share the great innovation of Bitshares community.

force settlement enable smart coin holders to forcibly buy BTS from debt position owners, so here price play a key role, now we set forcesettlement offset and quantity limit to protect debt position owners, now in almost all the cases, to directly buy from DEX is a better way for smartcoin holders to get BTS.

bitCNY has a 5% force settlement offset for long time and this does not impact the value of bitCNY, the value of smart coin do not rely that much on force settlement. if we can not guarantee tight peg+liquidity+fair price force settlement, I believe we should give up the last one.

We both agree on bitassets having a supply side problem and that
we should allow shorters to easier borrow bitassets. According to
my optimization criteria, I still believe we must not allow bitassets
to become undercollateralized (overall - we may find a way to allow
individual positions to go CR < 1)

I agree it's OK to not allow MCR<1 in the MCR based solution.
I agree that the overall collateral ratio need to be >1, the problem is, how to handle some single margin call orders with CR<1? I think it's bad to let these single orders trigger global settlement process. can we just leave these orders there and wait they be eaten or disappear?

After BSIP applied to bitUSD the premium fell drastically, we hope we can keep this trend continue until to a close to 0 premium.
Well, arguable, that is expected behavior because we are "forcing" the marketing
to trade according to parity, we do not provide incentive for the market to
move to parity on its own. This difference is what does sit well with the Western
community.
I believe there are incentive - actually the “negative feedback” make this logic appears: if there are demands on smart coins (premium>0), there will be incentive to borrow smart coins and buy BTS, this is true incentive that we had ignored, it means if we can make more demands on smartcoins, we can help the BTS price to go up.

@Jerry, how about the both of us come to a compromise in that we allow the witnesses
to decide how to go forward and whether or not they want to run BSIP42 on bitUSD, or
not. I think, as a proxy, we shouldn't threaten them with the removal of our votes
just because they support(or not support) a BSIP that actually gives the freedom of
choice to them (the witnesses). With that said, I will retract my statement of removing
votes from BSIP2-bitUSD witnesses and would like to keep rational and
constructive discussion like this one going.

at this moment I'd like to stop "threatening" witnesses - frankly speaking I don't think this can be called "threaten", this is just to express opinion of a voter, it's always not easy to push such kind of update, so sometimes voting power is needed, I don't promise to give up the right of a proxy.




1040
抱歉,上次回帖时情绪不太对,所以回帖10分钟后就删掉了,未料已经被引用了。

如果是改为调MCR,我是认为需要允许MCR<1的。

按市场逻辑推演,即使出现了MCR<1的情况,市场也会很快自动修正的,因为小于1的抵押率意味着无穷大的杠杆,市场会很快出现大量抵押和买单,提高bitCNY供应,溢价会迅速降低,爆仓单会很快被吃掉,MCR也会很快回归1之上。

所以,出现部分债仓资不抵债的情况不是什么大问题,现在对黑天鹅的处理方式才是大问题。

国外和国内社区对智能货币的定位有些根本上的不同,比如xeroc就说,他并不认为智能货币最需要追求精确锚定和流动性,而是需要保证足额抵押和清算权利。这说明他们还不太有把智能货币做成广为应用的与USDT竞争的稳定币的决心,而是只当做一种简单的保值资产。这方面需要更多的沟通与说服。


1041
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: October 02, 2018, 08:18:04 am »
To further improve bitassets, I would recommend to lose then limits of the "short protection ratio" in case a call position goes
below a collateral ratio of .. say 130% to force the margin call to buy into the entire market not just up to 10%. This would be an
additional penalty to those that don't even bother keeping their collateral ratio sane.

"increasing penalty to debt position owners" is not a key to solve the problem, it always make things even worse.

when market become serious bear, it's not easy for most of the players to add more money to the market. and actually the borrower in BTS is not only the simple borrowers in traditional financial markets, they play the important role of issuing currency! when you increase the cost to issue currency, the result is less users to issue less currency, and lead to more serious currency deflation problem.

My personal stand: I am AGAINST BSIP42 on BitUSD clearly puts BitUSD holders at an disadvantage and effectively wipes out their ability to convert their BitUSD to BTS and a true face value. BitUSD creators have their call price always ABOVE the current market price (black swan if they don't sell?)

bitUSD is designed to peg USD, not to provide premium, as a stable coin, big premium/discount are hindering potential adopters to come in.

force settlement is seldom used for long time, simple to understand, before BSIP42, feed price is already >3% higher than DEX price, considering the 1% force settlement offset, you always to pay more than 4% to convert bitUSD to BTS by forse settlement comparing to just buy in DEX, if you place a buy order with price 2% higher than latest price, your orders will be fulfilled rapidly, right?

1042
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 02, 2018, 05:37:52 am »
Just wanted to clear that up because most people are not able to follow the bsip42 discussions. Yes some witnesses switched but the majority are still feeding w/ premium hence anything in the chart has nothing to do with xerocs announcement or a change in pricefeeding (since there wasn't one yet)

why nothing to do? it's clear that it's xeroc's announcement caused some witnesses to switch back, and then caused the median lower than it would be if they haven't switched back, this means the negative feedback power are not as strong as before.

1043
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 02, 2018, 05:24:58 am »
I'm very curious as to what you believe it tells seeing as the majority of the witnesses are still feeding BSIP42 feeds and median/price is still with premium.

I just said "seems", and actually some witnesses that had applied BSIP42 on bitUSD now returned back, they now feed price much lower than the median when there is still obvious premium, including delegate.freedom, sahkan-bitshares, witness.yao, xn-delegate, bangzi, witness.hiblockchain...

1044
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 02, 2018, 04:44:01 am »


this biUSD/bitCNY chart can tell something.

bitCNY has pegged well for some days, as bitUSD is still in high premium, the ratio is kept above 7.1 for some days.

about 5 days ago, BSIP42 began working at bitUSD and the ratio fall from above 7.1 to below 6.9, a good trend to return to good peg.

however after xeroc's announcement, it seems some witnesses return back to the non-BSIP42 price feeding algorithms, and  the ratio begin to go up, an off-peg process begin.

1045
General Discussion / Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 01, 2018, 06:31:22 pm »
Recently there are some BSIP42 relevant actions: proxy openledger and michaelx vote to oppose BSIP42, proxy xerox claimed that will unvote witnesses that apply BSIP to bitUSD.

Sad to see these, however, I think I can understand why these actions comes out, I was also an opponent to BSIP42 at the very beginning of discussion, but step by step I was persuaded by others, especially by abit, so here I’ll also try to  summary some key points of the solution and hope that can help to persuade.

First, let’s define the vision of smartcoin,  in my view, it is 1. enough accurate pegging and 2. enough liquidity. based on these smartcoin will seek wildly adoption comparing to USDT.

If you do not agree on these, if you think “premium is good, volatility is good, I am bitUSD holder don’t remove the premium” you need not to read follows.

to improve pegging and also liquidity, now there are 2 solutions:

1. BSIP42
2. To dynamically adjust MCR

The core ideas of these 2 solutions is negative feedback - while one smartcoin is in positive premium, loose the smartcoin creation condition, while one smartcoin is in negative premium, tighten the smartcoin creation condition.

this naturally lead to one question: in bear market both solutions lead to higher black swan risks, a higher feed price lead to higher called price and also higher global settlement price, while solution2 also may lead to a close to 1 collateral ratio.

Let’s do a idea test: if we disable black swan setting, what will happen:
My conclusion is: the actual CR has very low chance to fall below 1, even it fall below 1, it is easy for it to jump above 1.

Easy to understand: if one can borrow with actual CR < 1, he have a infinite leverage and can borrow smart coin and buy BTS endlessly, this is not sustainable as the rapidly increased smartcoin quantity will rapidly lower the smart coin premium, with the negative feedback mechanism  the actual CR will rapidly return above 1, either by lowering price feed in soluton1 or increasing MCR in solution2.

In practice, we can expect that when actual CR fall close to 1, the “borrow and buy” activity will happen in big quantity that can resist the actual CR to fall continually, there is a very very little chance for black swan to happen even we keep the black swan setting with solution1 or solution2.

“harsh collateral rule lead to high risk” is one essential experience we lernt in the past several years, increasing force settlement offset, target CR both follow an essential logic: try to be more friendly to debt position owners, request least to borrowers. In BSIP42 the new idea is to let the market decide what an actual collateral ratio is appropriate, this not only improve peg, but also help to convert the demand of smart coin to purchasing power to BTS. The latter make big sense for ecosystem grow up.

After BSIP applied to bitUSD the premium fell drastically, we hope we can keep this trend continue until to a close to 0 premium.

bitUSD belong to the people all around the world, in China there are also many big bitUSD players. it will benefit the whole ecosystem to keep better peg and better liquidity, I hope the whole community can take action to protect the good pegging status of bitUSD, if we remove BSIP42 at this moment, bitUSD will return to high premium and disappoint potential users again, don’t make the previous efforts wasted.

If anyone would like to try some other solutions like solution2, please leave BSIP42 there and develop the new BSIP, go through the voting->testing->implementation process, if there’s strong enough consensus, it can cover BSIP42.

it’s not easy for the whole community to make bitUSD to go on a right way, I now have no choice but try my best to protect BSIP42 from being removed from bitUSD, spring-team now only support the witnesses that apply BSIP42 to bitUSD, if later this week xeroc unvote the witnesses that support BSIP42 on bitUSD, proxy bitcrab will unvote the witnesses that do not support BSIP42 on bitUSD.

I also hope voters that prefer bitUSD to have a better peg/liquidity to take similar actions. save bitUSD, please!

The next work day I’ll visit finance office to request them to remove setting proxy of binance-bitshares-gvbdb84k6h as openledger.

1046
Is this why current feed price is 14 usd cents, while the market price is around 11.5 usd cents. Please enlighten me.

yes, as there is still premium for bitUSD, feed priced are increased to lower the premium.

@bitcrab why not lower MCR to lower than 1.75 for bitCNY? Then you can leverage more and lessen the shortage

dynamically adjusting MCR is another way for better pegging, but 1) there's bug 2)MCR are not allowed to be lower than 1 so the effect is limited.

1047
General Discussion / Re: Somebody might enlighten me why BSIP42 on BitUSD ?
« on: September 30, 2018, 03:56:01 am »
No, this is not me who should create a 'privatized' MPA. A guy, who wants to change a contract terms should do this. When I bought an MPA issued by committee, I signed up for a certain terms (as many other users) and I am not happy when somebody mess them up.

yes, the smartcoin can be seen as a contract signed by different parties, however, it is designed as changable from its born.

committee can directly change some parameters like force settlement offset.

witnesses can publish the MCR and MSSR according to their judgement.

surely the change need strong consensus from the community.

as @abit has mentioned, while drafting BSIP42, the first choice to adjusting MCR dynamically, but because of some technical problem this is not feasible, adjusting feed price is the second choice, it is a little confusing but it works.

I know some users are not happy because of this change, but I believe this change will benefit the whole system.

reviewing what had happened to bitCNY in the past several months can help to think -  because of the big premium and serious shortage, AEX and bigone removed bitCNY as a base trading currency.

it make no sense to say "keep bitUSD unchanged, create another", it is just the committee's responsibility to help the current smartcoins to evolve.

I also hope the big proxies to consider carefully on this issue, BSIP42 is not perfect, but it works, maybe we can consider another solution like fixing the MCR adjusting bug and then switch to the "dynamically adjusting MCR" way, but please let BSIP42 work before we can finish all the needed work to enable dynamic MCR.

1048
General Discussion / Re: Somebody might enlighten me why BSIP42 on BitUSD ?
« on: September 29, 2018, 01:19:04 am »
I must confess, I am not very happy with BSIP42 being applied on bitUSD already.
However, we had a great discussion today to make everyone happy short term and strengthen the concept of bitassets in general.
Expect a new BSIP to be published next week .. To allow comparison, that particular BSIP would (for now) exclude bitCNY as I do not
intend to change experiments while they are ongoing and also to allow comparison of performance.
The new BSIP will most probably only affect bitUSD and bitEUR.
Looking forward to hear your feedback as soon as it is finished ....

then are you happy to see that bitUSD kept a >3% premium for so long time?

what's  the core idea of the planned new BSIP?  is it "keep feed price the real market price and adjust MCR dynamically"?

1049
General Discussion / Re: Somebody might enlighten me why BSIP42 on BitUSD ?
« on: September 28, 2018, 11:08:26 am »
BSIP42 allow witnesses to modify their price feeding algorithms based on the "negative feedback" concept.

to push the things forward, not only need the BSIP be passed, but also need to do coordination with witnesses.

now many witnesses understand BSIP42 well and select to apply it in bitUSD, things went well so far, I don't understand why so many people do not like this.

we need to compete with USDT, GUSD... we have not too much time to wait, just start it and watch it carefully is the right way.

1050
updated witnesses voting, supported witnesses that take positive actions on implementing BSIP42 on bitUSD.

Pages: 1 ... 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 [70] 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 ... 129