https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20337.msg262028.html#msg262028

I support disable force settlement not only for bitCNY but also for all  other asset,
should I select yes or no?

you should select yes, only BitCNY is involved in this poll.
if necessary, we can discuss other BitAssets in a new poll.

Quote from: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:10:48 pm

Quote from: tonyk on November 29, 2015, 04:02:21 pm

Quote from: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 03:56:39 pm

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

why 35% loss? who? tell me,  with snapshots at best.

sure... Trying to sell 3000-5000 CNY




market has no good depth, so you can not sell all these CNY out at a good price, but what's the problem?
suppose I have 1M BTS, I also cannot sell out at a good price , does that mean BTS is overvalued at the feed price?

why BitCNY  need to be selled all out and then can be proved to have value?
there's gateway, you can redeem BitCNY.

it's ridiculous to rob BTS from shorters just to settle the BitCNY!

 

Quote from: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 03:56:39 pm

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

The problem is whether those bad things happen because of BitShares' system rules or simply because someone did not use the right business model. that's the question here.

right, to locate the reason need much communication and discuss, in this case I think to disable the force settle  temporarily is a correct choice.

当初BM计划开发2.0的时候，这个是一开始就提出来的，讨论了很久。这个功能就类似0.9里面的short设置了过期时间一样，是为了保证bitcny的持有者总能换回bts，如果没法换回，铆钉会失败。

2.0发布之后CLI一直有这个功能，只是刚刚开放在GUI里。

根本就不需要这个功能，0.9里面的大姨妈只是给大家添乱，现在好不容易大姨妈没了，又来了个可以随时强清。

承兑商根本不需要这功能，而且，因为承兑商通常也有一定空头仓位，这种随时强清的功能对承兑商是一种威胁。

空头的风险更大了，产生BITCNY的成本更高了，BITCNY价格会升高至超过一元，这样一来，各种事都不好做，没人会愿意用bitcny给38充值。

轻钱包里一开始没这功能，大家也都没当回事，现在有了，了解到它的恐怖了，才开始如做针毡。

 
  Why a shorter short?
   
  obviously because he judge that something is overvalued.
   
 in BTS term shorter refer to the users who judge that fiat is overvalued, on the contrary, BTS is undervalued, so they short BitAssets, they hope when the BTS price rise up they can sell their BTS to get BitAssets back to cover the short position, and then make profits.
   
 shorters bear the risk of being margin called.
   
 so the basic logic for shorters is that he can hold his collateral when the collateral ratio is sufficient and wait for the price change.
   
 now you make the force settlement, which means anyone can get the collateral from the shorters at the feed price, no matter how high his collateral ratio is.
   
 isn't it robbery? when BTS price is low, speculators can get BTS by force settlement as they will, they can even supress the BTS price in external exchange to lower the feed price to make them even better conditon to rob BTS from shorters.

   trade logic should be, you can ask to buy, but I can refuse to sell, even the leverage contract only get settled in some special conditons, now you enable any one can force settle any time. why be so cruel to shorters?

   you said force settlement is not new, it comes out for long time. anyway, in 1.0 there is no such force settlement, but many shorters's positions are inherited from 1.0, shouldn't you be more cautious when it's possible to hurt a group of users?

now let's check what force settlement will bring to the market.

in BitUSD market the BTS price is always lower than feed price, we can forsee that seldom force settlement will happen.

in BitCNY market as now force settlement is well known, BitCNY will be priced more expensive than CNY, suppose 1.05 CNY, transwiser paused the deposit business, and no one will use BitCNY to deposit to BTC38.

for pegged asset it's important to peg well, just get a price floor will make no sense, if 1 BitCNY always worth 1.05 CNY, no merchant would like to use it, they won't list 2 different prices for one single goods, one for CNY, the other differnent for BitCNY. and if the merchant just regard BitCNY as same as CNY,  who want to pay in BitCNY?

force settlement will bring chaos to the well organized BitCNY ecosystem, and do good only to speculators.

let me repeat my suggestion: please make force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

Quote from: bitcrab on November 29, 2015, 04:29:29 am

Quote from: merivercap on November 28, 2015, 06:30:45 pm

@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.

Why don't we enable it for bitCNY and disable it for bitUSD to learn?     Right now the only way to test forced settlement is with bitCNY because there are more buyers than sellers in the bitCNY market.  It couldn't even be tested here because there aren't enough bitUSD buyers.

force settlement is designed to convince the merchant to accept MPA, mainly in US, in China there's no such problem, in China merchant has little chance to use BitCNY, because internet payment such as alipay are too developed and too powerful.

I completely believe that BitCNY does not need such a force settlement feature, so if possible i'd like to suggest to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and disable it for BitCNY. and then you can do what you like to BitUSD.

if the force settlement go public, BitCNY will be more expensive than 1 CNY, and there will be much uncertainty in BitCNY market, transwiser is not necessary to expose itself to these unnecessary risks. transwiser may stop its BitCNY business and  issue its private CNY and act as gateway accordingly.