1771
中文 (Chinese) / Re: transwiser发行私人智能货币的计划
« on: December 03, 2015, 04:15:47 pm »我还以为详细计划已经出来了。
这个思路是不错，不过bitcny已经有了一定的群众基础，你再搞一个TCNY，受众面可能会比较窄，要重新打广告，和bitcny抢饭碗，不知道这对bts持有者来说是利大还是弊大。
和bitcny抢饭碗很简单。
不管是谁发的币，只要更好用，生态做得更大，那就对BTS利大于弊。
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.
和bitcny抢饭碗很简单。
不管是谁发的币，只要更好用，生态做得更大，那就对BTS利大于弊。
1772
中文 (Chinese) / transwiser发行私人智能货币的计划
« on: December 03, 2015, 03:04:06 pm »
这几天发生的事情，让我对“我为什么要辛辛苦苦地培育BitCNY的市场”这个问题开始了深深的思索。
强清功能出现在轻钱包的时候，系统并未做好准备，不但CNY喂价依然明显偏低，强清的参数之一“最大清算量”的设计值2% 也被错设成了20%，这两者都极大地增加了shorter的风险，而且这风险是本不该有的，在费了九牛二虎之力终于把这两个危险因素消除之后，总算可以松一口气。
现在的BitCNY，虽然强清给shorter带来的风险已被降至最低，但还是有一个让人蛋疼的地方，就是强清的后果之一是给BitCNY带来了溢价，换句话说如果你有空仓，你就完全不乐意以1:1的价格出售BitCNY，因为这意味着你在给有可能向你发起强清的人提供子弹。
那么也就是说transwiser的1:1承兑的模式在现在的BitCNY这里已经进行不下去了。
其实还可以继续改，BitCNY有一个"force_settlement_offset_percent“的参数，是设定强清时发起强清一方向shorter的补偿的，如果设定一个合适的值（2%~5%？）那么是可以消除掉BitCNY的溢价的，重新使承兑成为可能的。
但我已经没兴趣为此再去理事会战斗了，因为我发现了解决问题的更好的方式，那就是-发行私人智能货币。
BTS2.0里新增了发行私人智能货币的功能，也就是说，任何用户都可以创造一种类似BitCNY这样的资产，比如叫TCNY,设定各种参数，然后其它用户可以象发行BitCNY一样抵押BTS来发行TCNY。
那么，我可以根据我对市场的理解来设定各种参数，做出来一个比BitCNY更符合市场需要的货币。
提供网关服务，引入各种交易品种到BTS中和TCNY交易。
而且TCNY的创造者还可以定义费率，收取费用。
所以啊,BM给给你提供了搞私人智能货币得可能，你还在那里苦逼地搞BitCNY不是傻逼吗？
要搞就搞得像模像样点，第一步，先拉几个人一起成立一个理事会，货币参数的改动必须由理事会成员以类似N/M签名的方式决定。
然后是确定发行的各种参数，这个且听下回分解。。。
强清功能出现在轻钱包的时候，系统并未做好准备，不但CNY喂价依然明显偏低，强清的参数之一“最大清算量”的设计值2% 也被错设成了20%，这两者都极大地增加了shorter的风险，而且这风险是本不该有的，在费了九牛二虎之力终于把这两个危险因素消除之后，总算可以松一口气。
现在的BitCNY，虽然强清给shorter带来的风险已被降至最低，但还是有一个让人蛋疼的地方，就是强清的后果之一是给BitCNY带来了溢价，换句话说如果你有空仓，你就完全不乐意以1:1的价格出售BitCNY，因为这意味着你在给有可能向你发起强清的人提供子弹。
那么也就是说transwiser的1:1承兑的模式在现在的BitCNY这里已经进行不下去了。
其实还可以继续改，BitCNY有一个"force_settlement_offset_percent“的参数，是设定强清时发起强清一方向shorter的补偿的，如果设定一个合适的值（2%~5%？）那么是可以消除掉BitCNY的溢价的，重新使承兑成为可能的。
但我已经没兴趣为此再去理事会战斗了，因为我发现了解决问题的更好的方式，那就是-发行私人智能货币。
BTS2.0里新增了发行私人智能货币的功能，也就是说，任何用户都可以创造一种类似BitCNY这样的资产，比如叫TCNY,设定各种参数，然后其它用户可以象发行BitCNY一样抵押BTS来发行TCNY。
那么，我可以根据我对市场的理解来设定各种参数，做出来一个比BitCNY更符合市场需要的货币。
提供网关服务，引入各种交易品种到BTS中和TCNY交易。
而且TCNY的创造者还可以定义费率，收取费用。
所以啊,BM给给你提供了搞私人智能货币得可能，你还在那里苦逼地搞BitCNY不是傻逼吗？
要搞就搞得像模像样点，第一步，先拉几个人一起成立一个理事会，货币参数的改动必须由理事会成员以类似N/M签名的方式决定。
然后是确定发行的各种参数，这个且听下回分解。。。
1773
General Discussion / Re: so disappoint for this community
« on: December 03, 2015, 08:08:59 am »I ask witness to change SQP from 1500 to 1100,
all people object at the first, then several witness agree with me, but they all change back to 1500 only because of BM said 1500 is right
finally when we change it back to 1100, many user have lost their money
I ask community pause force settlement to avoid a possible unfair robbing
almost all people object me, they say I do it for Chinese commilitee, they focus on who's fault but not the problem itself,
they said this is not a problem because it's always there from the beginning.
we are lucky the committee have agree this proposal, although many seems not happy for this
people think I'm overthought, but do I? trader is not kids's game, do you really want do a serial business based this toy system?
I ask correct the settlement's volume limit from 20% to 2%
many people unsatisified me again, and other people nobody can make sure if I am right, they just want to wait BM's advice.
no any Judgement again.
I ask committee correct it before reenable settlement,
but they said they must keep their promise to reenable force settlement, even don't care about if this is a security problem.
because user's security is not their responsibility to consider
after all these, I got disapoint only
I will continue my noise, just vote me out if I am not satisfied you.
I do not agree with the title, but what alt elaborated is really a big problem we have to face honestly and seriously.
the "SQP1500" event is really a big shame for Bitshares. it has very bad influence to Bitshares' reputation, it put a big doubt on how bitshares can do good change management and protect user's benefits from being hurt. every developer, committee member, witness should remember this event and try to prevent similar things from happening in the future.
in the past several days, committee did some change to the blockchain parameters, the route is disable force settlement ->upgrade price feed scripts->change max settle volume of from 20% to 2% ->enable force settlement. the former 2 are finished, the latter 2 will take affect in several hours.
actually it's not easy to do all this, many debates happened in the process, but finally the result is satisfactory, I am proud that the committee can finish this as a whole.
now let's review what happened and why they should happen.
force settlement is a new feature of bts2.0, it is announced in the documents several months ago, however many users, including me, recognize what this feature bring only after the settle button appear in latest light wallet.
force settlement is a powerful tool, it can bring price floor to smartcoin, it can also be used by speculators to manipulate the market, so while introducing this feature, it is very important to config the environment carefully to try to prevent it from being abused, and protect the user's benefits.
but even 2 days ago, 2 things are not ready to welcome the force settlement.
1. for BitCNY, the settlement price provided by witness is always obvious lower than the actual price.
2.the max settle volume parameter is wrongly set to 20%, according to the design it should be set to 2%.
these 2 factors give speculators big chance to manipulate the market, and expose the shorters to big risks. when several days ago I tried my best to persuade committee members to disable the force settlement temporarily I am only aware of factor 1, not aware of factor 2.
committee finally agree to disable the force settlement temporarily with unwillingness from some members, and then the work to upgrade the feed price script began, I'd like to say thanks for all the members that participated the new script coding and test, yesterday the new script work well.
and then the 20% max settle volume problem come to committee's vision, after some debate and response from BM, 2 proposals are created to change the 20% to 2% and enable the force settlement at almost the same time.
in the whole process I behaved rude and tough now and then, I apologize here if I had hurt someone's feeling, but I don't regret to what I have done, In many cases the only thing I focus is to ensure what should be done really be done, nothing else.
many said all I did is for my own benefits, sure, if the system introduce risk features without well prepared environment and put all shorters to big risk, shouldn't I fight for them, including myself?
someone tell me that I over evaluate the risk, but, from a perspective of a financial system, the key point is to kill the possibility of easy market manipulation at design, this is relevant to many users' assets, not kids' game.
someone said I help shorters but hurt longers, surely shorters need more care, because in Bitshares only shorters face the risk of being margin called or force settled, and have big possibility to be exploited. there's no leverage tradings designed for longers and longers have no such risks to bear. I really helped shorters, but I haven't hurt longers, at most I removed their chance to exploit shorters.
I am glad to see a user wrote this after knowing what had happened:
I missed that post from bytemaster. And cryptofresh doesn't seem to indicate who created the proposal. It would have been nice for committee members to be explicit about this as their rationale for quickly voting the 20%-->2% change, otherwise it looks to stakeholders like you're not being deliberate enough, especially after the previous controversial proposal that was voted through. Anyway, it looks like things are falling into place. Thanks.
I appreciate BM's talent very much, but BM can also make mistake, including big mistake, in my view, one of committee''s tasks is to prevent BM from making big mistake.
I am open to any ideas, but while necessary, it's not a problem for me to say no to everyone.
1774
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: December 02, 2015, 07:41:19 am »I'd like to explain once again that the price feed is actual "not wrong" given the set of exchanges it pulls its data from.
Issue 1): There is no such thing as a single true price if you have an asset traded on more than one exchange
Issue 2): Given a set of several exchange, you can derive either a mean, median, or weighted-by-volume price
Issue 3): If you weight your prices by volume, you need to be careful about exchanges that allow trading without fees
This is why the "old" price feed script does not take exchanges into account that allow free trading. The "new" price feed script allows to
pick different exchanges for different smartcoins (e.g. CNY) and adds those fee-free exchanges as sources.
Hence, once the scripts is proofed stable, witnesses can customize the sources for each asset and have USD be rather "stable" using
weighted-median while CNY can be derived as median over fee-free exchanges, or as weighted via non-free and free exchanges
@xeroc thanks a lot for all you have done for this, you always did great work.
1775
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: December 02, 2015, 07:10:37 am »There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329
we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .
claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?
not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.
the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
everyone can hold CNY short, without explaining to others, and the market need the shorters to provide BitCNY liquidity.
the price feed has deviated, it appears always lower a lot than the actual price, this created an unfair market context that hurt all shorters, developers is now trying to remove the unfairness by refining the scripts, this is all why we paused the force settlement.
understand?
1776
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: December 02, 2015, 07:00:21 am »There was active exploiting that uses inaccurate price feed and generates free money for the exploiter.
http://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=20356.msg262329.msg#262329
we talked in the past already about inaccurate price feeds a lot. i wanted to have them as good as possible. with metaexchange we had the problem in exchanging bitBTC - BTC .
claiming not working pricefeeds - hurts only shorters, so i ask transwiser direct - why are you holding CNY shorts?
not working pricefeeds will happen again and again and if transwiser justs holds CNY and bitCNY it is not their concern.
it was also already stated - force settlement is in the command client since the beginning, so nothing new here at all.
this reaction tastes not good in my mouth.
the committee saved some speculators and hurt other speculators.
Instead of changing a core principle they could've just:
- asked witnesses to shutdown CNY market
- shutdown transwiser
- pay for a professional price feed provider (via worker)
but it's easier to push your own agenda out of greed. I hope those involved will get voted out sooner rather than later, unfortunately, the language barrier prevents this.
to me one thing is strange, you are not an active committee member, but why it's you that manage the committee management board?
1777
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:21:49 am »
it's my fault not to pay enough attention to the force settlement feature in 2.0, you have the opportunity because transwiser kept on selling BitCNY at 1 CNY to the market in past.
the force settlement feature bring additional risks to the shorter, the result is that BitCNY will worth more than 1 CNY, with a variable premium.
merchant/customers need a cryptocurrency that has fixed value, they just need a simple value transfer media, nothing more, to calculate/check/split the premium need to pay more time/energy/management cost, a BitCNY with variable premium added to 1 CNY is not what the really need.
BitCNY has been a good payment media for merchant/customers, there have been merchant(BTC38), customers(btc38 users), acceptance dealer(transwiser), now the introduction of the force settle make all the above have no space to stay and only speculators will enjoy.
market need speculators, but if there are only speculators in the market, speculators will find no chance to make profit.
I agree with you and I'm glad to see that it worked well as a payment media for merchants/customers in China. I don't think it's much different here. That's precisely how I envision bitCash to work.
very different, one important principle for the design of a currency system is to balance the responsibility, power, and benefit of each role in the market. you can check the design of DAI for reference, there are also force settlement there, but the rule is that the user who request force settlement will pay penalty according to the collateral ratio of the short position that will be settled, the higher the collateral ratio, the higher the penalty.
this rule make a better balance. and shorter can enter to the market without many worry, and it is possible to peg.
the current rule in BTS2.0 do too much good to bitcny holders, but do bad to shorters, the balance is destroyed.
to peg is also important, what merchant/customers need is a payment media with fixed value, security and convenience, in bts1.0, transwiser can help BitCNY to realize this, but now, there's no chance for transwiser to do the same.
1778
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 02, 2015, 03:35:40 am »after 2 years of experimenting I think the best was the first and original rule..depending on demand for bitassets the bitusd could be at a discount or a premium..period..no expiration no SQP and shinny formulas..nothing..traders would short when bitasset was at premium and people would buy bitasset when in discount forcing the peg
Merchants accepting bitusd as a form of payment would know that at some point their bitasset would worth more or less but at least there would be liquidity from traders and the risk for not beeing able to convert all their bitasset in fiat would be minimal..Now after 2 years we have no liquidity, no traders in the DEX nothing..anyway..
I agree about SQP. Margin calls should only happen when they absolutely must (since it is destroying BTS when in undersupply), and therefore should be tied to whatever is the most liquid/accurate market values. SQP of 1 (fixed to price feed) makes most sense until internal markets are liquid enough.
"traders would short when bitasset was at premium and people would buy bitasset when in discount forcing the peg"
That did not work. The very first bitshares (version 0.1 or something like that) tried this with no price feed or incentives to maintain peg, and price ran away very quickly. Why should I pay for something with no intrinsic value just because it has the label "USD" on it? I'll sell you 1000 maqifrsnwaUSD for 1000.
forced settlement is both the "gold standard" and the "federal reserve." It is the "gold standard" since you can always redeem your smartcoin for the equivalent value in something else. It is the "federal reserve" since it incentivizes the destruction of smartcoins when supply exceeds demand such that value is maintained. What (fiat) currency in the world exists without either a "gold standard" or a "federal reserve?"
Confession of a force-settler (before the GUI made it easy):
I will confess that I was a forced-settler before the GUI came out. I was a force-settler because I spent the time to learn the system inside and out in order to test some bots for both smartcoins and UIA (I believe UIA with properly regulated KYC is the growth market for BTS). My bots know nothing about the underlying assets, they only know the market rules: Sell high, buy low, never sell an asset for less than it can be settled for, if you can buy an asset for less than it can be settled then buy the assets and settle. This behavior is rational, generates profit, and keeps BitShares working efficiently - so it is a win-win for everyone. I feel it is a "service" to the community. I probably settled 1-2k CNY since it started. No other market presented settlement opportunities. I did not know why CNY presented this opportunity; I guessed there was a larger supply of "whales" trying to gain leverage any way they can in risky ways.
When I first heard of Transwiser, I was shocked at the business model (since it seemed like it would always lose money since 1 bitCNY> 1CNY) but also extremely impressed that they figured out to "beat the system" where I could not. The service was great for BTS and I was looking forward to them expanding to other currencies.
When I heard about the price feed data inaccuracy, at first I felt bad but then realized that the error was in some thinking smartcoins were something they were not. See: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20375.0/topicseen.html Even if the feed was incorrect, all businesses must know that the feed is all that matters and build their business model off of that (or work to correct the feed).
Now that we're almost through this "crisis," I think we're all stronger. Feeds are more accurate, people know what smartcoins are, and businesses know to research the system completely before building on top of it.
it's my fault not to pay enough attention to the force settlement feature in 2.0, you have the opportunity because transwiser kept on selling BitCNY at 1 CNY to the market in past.
the force settlement feature bring additional risks to the shorter, the result is that BitCNY will worth more than 1 CNY, with a variable premium.
merchant/customers need a cryptocurrency that has fixed value, they just need a simple value transfer media, nothing more, to calculate/check/split the premium need to pay more time/energy/management cost, a BitCNY with variable premium added to 1 CNY is not what the really need.
BitCNY has been a good payment media for merchant/customers, there have been merchant(BTC38), customers(btc38 users), acceptance dealer(transwiser), now the introduction of the force settle make all the above have no space to stay and only speculators will enjoy.
market need speculators, but if there are only speculators in the market, speculators will find no chance to make profit.
1779
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 01, 2015, 07:18:01 am »Bottom line, the market can price all of the risks which are highest during low liquidity, and get lower as liquidity improves. Someone who steps up to provide liquidity can "trust" in that liquidity and offer a competitive price over those who must trust someone else to provide liquidity. Bottom line, someone should buy up a lot of BitCNY at a price above 1.0 and then turn around and provide liquidity in the range of 1.05 to 1.06. The liquidity provider will make all of the money from back and forth trades and the shorts wouldn't really have to worry about getting force settled once there was ample liquidity.
hi BM, thanks for your explanation, I think I totally understand the design, but there are still things to discuss.
BitCNY play at least 2 roles in current ecosystem:
A.a value transfer media/payment tool between merchant and users.
B.a derivative played by investors/speculators.
so when we ask "is the fact that 1 BitCNY worth more than 1 CNY pros or cons?", we should first define for which role we are talking about.
unfortunately, I found "1 BitCNY worth more than 1 CNY" do good to role B, but hurt the role A.
suppose xiaomi decided to accept BitCNY, and in market 1 BitCNY = 1.05 CNY, then how should xiaomi list the price of its mobile product xiaomi4c? 1400CNY/1333BitCNY? it's too confusing to be feasible.
obviously,this fact will also make it impossible for BTC38 to accept BitCNY for user to deposit CNY.
we haven't considered yet that the CNY/BitCNY price may go up and down now and then, which will add more uncertaity for the payment role of BitCNY.
if the "perfect peg" is not necessary, then the service provided by transwiser is not necessary, BitCNY will be a toy of investors/speculators, not a payment media.
is this really what you want?
1780
General Discussion / Re: Smart Coins & Forced Settlement
« on: December 01, 2015, 03:47:09 am »
@clayop
It's no secret I was buying bitCNY for less than the feed and settling it because I am a rational market participant.
I still have a big sub feed price buy wall up and will continue to profit from it again when instant settlement returns. :-)
I'm not exploiting bitshares I'm exploiting transwiser.
thanks for convincing me that it is correct for committee to disable the force settlement temporarily.
1781
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 30, 2015, 03:53:48 pm »....as most of the BitCNY users agree.I am curious .. how did you evaluate this?
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20337.0.html
1782
General Discussion / Re: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community
« on: November 30, 2015, 03:35:25 pm »
I have read https://bitshares.org/technology/price-stable-cryptocurrencies/ long ago, I admit at that time I haven't paid much attention on it, when the first 2.0 version launched, I even forgot the "force settlement", only when the settle button appeared in the latest version light wallet I begin to realize how serious the thing is.
you can say it is my fault to forget it, but anyway now it is a problem and we need to face it and handle it.
if it is possible to disable force settle for BitCNY only, I think it will be the best option. as most of the BitCNY users agree.
you can say it is my fault to forget it, but anyway now it is a problem and we need to face it and handle it.
if it is possible to disable force settle for BitCNY only, I think it will be the best option. as most of the BitCNY users agree.
1783
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Commitee guidelines for future proposals
« on: November 30, 2015, 10:23:07 am »
do not agree most of the suggestions.
just take what happened yesterday as an example, as a representative of China community and BitCNY shorters, I definitely need to step out to take actions when I found there are big risks for BitCNY's short positions, this is not only for transwiser, but also for a big sub-community.
on the other hand, the action taken by committee yesterday is just temporary, it do not harm other groups when it defend one group.
for any small change there will always be big complain, need not to care that much, and I doubt whether it's a good idea to make many rules for how to create and implement proposals, because the proposals are different and the context that need them are also different.
just take what happened yesterday as an example, as a representative of China community and BitCNY shorters, I definitely need to step out to take actions when I found there are big risks for BitCNY's short positions, this is not only for transwiser, but also for a big sub-community.
on the other hand, the action taken by committee yesterday is just temporary, it do not harm other groups when it defend one group.
for any small change there will always be big complain, need not to care that much, and I doubt whether it's a good idea to make many rules for how to create and implement proposals, because the proposals are different and the context that need them are also different.
1784
Technical Support / Re: how many addtional risk as a bitCNY shorters(with fucntion settlement)?
« on: November 30, 2015, 06:13:17 am »
they said, you should know these risks when you borrow, but many shorters' positions come from 0.9.*, no force settlement at that time, they are now rudely added the force settlement.
and, from any perspective, the force settlement rule do much more bad than good, it remove the incentive to short but benefit speculators most.
I know this rule is there, but I strongly suggest to disable it for BitCNY, it is not to change Bitshares for one business, but to change Bitshares to protect the users, to benefit a big sub-community.
and, from any perspective, the force settlement rule do much more bad than good, it remove the incentive to short but benefit speculators most.
I know this rule is there, but I strongly suggest to disable it for BitCNY, it is not to change Bitshares for one business, but to change Bitshares to protect the users, to benefit a big sub-community.
1785
Technical Support / Re: poll for disabling force settlement for BitCNY.
« on: November 30, 2015, 04:25:31 am »To set the record straight, a topic on permanently disabling force settlement for BitCNY or not, was NOT and is NOT on the Comittee's table.
Back to the discussion of whether to permanently disable force settlement for bitCNY or not:
In my personal opinion, a close discussion/consultation should be made between Transwiser and BM and team first before gathering feedback from the community. This will help to focus on the main points and make a common decision easier.
I am open to any discussion, but I think now it's clear what to do next.
