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 - Troglodactyl

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 64
256
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: May 02, 2015, 10:44:07 pm »
110% forced cover is a feature, not a bug...

101%-105% max would clearly be nice.


I can't imagine trying to explain why we have two kinds of bitAssets that are the same thing but that are not compatible. It's impossible to market that.

We're used to it in America. We have two kinds of politicians that are the same thing but that are not compatible (when in view). It's actually very easy to market and is working quite well for TPTB. ;)
Hilarious  :P That's a very clever analogy, no doubt it help our marketing team !

No, not a bug.  I'd call it a design flaw.

257
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: May 02, 2015, 07:19:09 pm »
I think the biggest issue with BitAssets right now is the forced cover at 110% feed on expiration.  If we're going to have expiration at all, it should force a cover at the feed.  As it is now, longs have no reason to sell at the feed, since with a little patience they can expect a forced buy at +10%.  Now that shorts have figured this out, they're mostly only shorting at a price limit of about +10%, so the peg is actually being maintained pretty effectively at around $1.10.

The new BitAssets 3.0 proposal mostly fixes this by moving forced cover to -1% instead of +10%, but it seems like a major overhaul where a few fixes would be sufficient.  If it's necessary for longer range plans for the bond market it may make sense anyway.
Is this not gonna be fixed after tuesday's hardfork? That was my impression but i am uncertain about it..

I think Tuesday's hardfork was fixing the market freeze when shorts expire, but not the fact that they're forced to cover at 110%, hopefully I'm wrong on that.

258
General Discussion / Re: BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review
« on: May 02, 2015, 02:34:31 pm »
I think the biggest issue with BitAssets right now is the forced cover at 110% feed on expiration.  If we're going to have expiration at all, it should force a cover at the feed.  As it is now, longs have no reason to sell at the feed, since with a little patience they can expect a forced buy at +10%.  Now that shorts have figured this out, they're mostly only shorting at a price limit of about +10%, so the peg is actually being maintained pretty effectively at around $1.10.

The new BitAssets 3.0 proposal mostly fixes this by moving forced cover to -1% instead of +10%, but it seems like a major overhaul where a few fixes would be sufficient.  If it's necessary for longer range plans for the bond market it may make sense anyway.

259
General Discussion / Re: Gaining Financial Exposure to Bitshares
« on: May 01, 2015, 11:22:06 pm »
Our site, http://Blocktrades.us is probably the simplest, most effective way to acquire a large BTS stake I think.

First I've heard of your site. I'll give it a try. Do you have an affiliate program?
We plan on setting up a program like that before too long. It will be tied in through our new "user account" support.

Why no BitShares login support for the user account?

260
General Discussion / Re: ALL TIME LOW .
« on: May 01, 2015, 12:12:32 am »

I'm even thinking of borrowing money to increase my position (nothing I can't afford to lose of course).

Bitshares needs strong hands, I intend to play my part!

It might be the right time, but I would like to point out that borrowing money in order to buy is the weakest hand of all.  Because if it goes down you must sell to pay back the borrowed money.

Strong hands means people who bought, not on margin, not with borrowed money, and who do not intend to sell if the price declines, under any circumstances.  Strong hands is people who are buying who also have plenty more cash available to continue to buy more if the prices stays down or goes even lower.

I don't plan on selling any BTS to pay back a loan (that is if I take one), if it happens I will pay it back with my tax return that is on the way. And I'll be coming into more available money on a continuous basis, so if it keeps falling in the long run, I'll be there to buy cheap BTS.

I never sold any BTS I bought and I've been around almost since the beginning (AGS donator, PTS holder). I had plenty of occasions to cut off my loss, but never did. I've always been a value investor on the stock market, and IMO Bitshares is seriously undervalued. But that's my opinion, so I might be wrong.

Anyway, although I'm a small time investor, I believe I'm part of a minority who only bought and never sold, and I don't plan to sell at all. Except maybe if BTS reaches 1-2$, I might cash in on part of my investment, only to avoid overexposure to cryptos compared to my other investments. I live frugally on an engineer salary and invest everything I can spare, and I try to diversify as well (rental real estate, stock market and cryptos). Hopefully I'll be able to hit a homerun with at least some of those investments! Only time will tell.

But you are right. Usually those who borrow to invest are the weekest hands, as they believe they will be able to cash in their profits and pay back their loans. But I've been investing long enough to know one shouldn't count on potential profits to pay back debts.

I'm also still buying, and have no intention of selling in the next few years.

261
As a Christian, I approve of a surprisingly high percentage of what I've seen coming out of the Satanic Temple.

262
General Discussion / Re: BitUSD supply
« on: April 29, 2015, 10:34:18 pm »
Whats up is that people converted to BTS during the crash, which is absolutely what they should do.  And those short bitUSD (thus long BTS on margin) were forced to cover due to margin calls.


The fact that bitAsset supplies must shrink as BTS market cap drops is exactly the thing that makes it not a ponzi.  This is why BTS is better than Nubits - because supply of bitAssets decreases when demand goes away (instead of the value of bitUSD just going to 0).



Also, the idea "3x bitUSD market cap = BTS value" is not accurate.  The BTS market cap relative to bitAsset market cap only shows the potential for how much bitAssets could be created/supported at that time.   Back before bitAssets even existed, BTS had a market cap.  The lack of bitAssets didnt imply the cap should be 0.

Bitcoin has no bitAssets.  This does not mean that bitcoin is worth 0.

 +5%

Indeed.  He has it backwards, [Market cap] / [Margin call ratio] is the maximum BitAsset total that can be fully backed.

263
This can be done, but there's no point in having it officially managed by the chain since it will be an IOU anyway with counterparty risk.  Our chain is an efficient host for such businesses though.  Anyone can issue redeemable BTC tokens as UIAs and I think there's certainly a market for this.

It would be great if some of the well known exchanges offered such tokens, since they have the most established reputation for that sort of counterparty risk.

264
Technical Support / Re: Rolling over a short position
« on: April 17, 2015, 01:35:01 pm »
It isn't completely risk free because someone can issue another interfering order at the same time, but the basic process is this:

Check that there are no current expired orders, no bids high above the feed, and check the interest rate and price limit for any current shorts.  Create a short order in the gap between highest bid and lowest ask and click short, but don't confirm it yet.  Create a matching buy order to buy up all of your short, but don't submit it yet either.  Double check the feed and order books to make sure your orders will currently be matched with each other, and then quickly confirm both orders so they make it into the same block.  Assuming no one else submits an order in the same block that crosses over your order price, they'll match and you can use the BitAsset from your new short to cover your old short, effectively recollateralizing and extending the expiration to 30 days.

265
So if I'm short and the BTS price drops I get to keep my position. OK, I lose money but I knew the risk.

On the other hand, if the BTS price rises somebody will snatch away my short-position offering slightly higher APR and I miss out on the rise.

You're leaving me the risk but taking the reward.

Currently people can only short at 0% (even to themselves) if there is an under-supply of shorts. There's no need for a fix here.

No, you have the proposal wrong.  If the BTS price rises and somebody snatches away your short position, you get the full profit from the rise that occurred before they outbid you on interest.  If you still think the interest rate is lower than anticipated BTS growth at that point, you outbid the lowest interest short and end up short again.

The reason this fix would be necessary is that it would eliminate the need for shorts to expire, because paying interest would encourage shorters to cover any time there was excess BitUSD rather than harvesting yield with lower than average interest self shorts.

There is definitely need for a fix here.  The 30 day expiration combined with the 10% discount on expired shorts pretty much guarantees that BitUSD will generally be scarce and overpriced by about 10%, because it's guaranteed that if BitUSD holders refuse to sell, within 30 days someone will be forced to offer feed + 10%.  Interest rate competition taking place independently in every block and then locking in for a month also makes no sense.

266
Update: The problem now is that with expiration and the forced cover at 110%, the ceiling on the sustainable market cap for the sum of all MPAs is Min([BTS Market Cap]/3, [BTS held by bulls expecting a 10% rise within 30 days]/2).

By making interest rates persistently competitive, shorters could not short at 0% interest and hold indefinitely.  Since they would be paying interest, there would be greater incentive to buy and cover even without expiring shorts and penalties.  Shorts could be opened rapidly at 0% interest to meet sudden demand for MPAs, but those shorts could be recollateralized by anyone offering higher interest as soon as the demand for leverage on the growth of BTS increased.

267
General Discussion / Re: Privatizing BitAssets
« on: April 16, 2015, 12:34:23 pm »
If BitUSD were a privately owned asset then the manager of that asset (responsible for publishing the price feed) could make money directly proportional to adoption. 

I feel this experiment has been tried in the past, think eGold.  In my untrained opinion, the "manager" in the OP is an Issuer of a security and will be exposed to the full extent of the regulatory enforcement efforts of the pegged asset Issuer.   

The BitShares BitUSD is not issued by anyone; it is included as a feature of released P2P software.  The market for that pegged asset is between individuals with a protocol supporting their transactions. 

Overall I feel the OP introduces too many risks and does not enhance our collaborative community.

Respectfully,
Fox

Agreed, I think this might be an interesting thing to enable for niche markets once our core MPA's are better established and more widely used, but I don't think it's a good idea as a drop in replacement system.  I also see at least BitUSD, BitCNY, BitGold, BitSilver, and BitBTC as core products of BitShares.  Our products are complicated enough without making people choose between a dozen different pegged USD tokens, and liquidity is also an issue.

268
The main website is apparently no longer hooked up to this, just tested.

269
Extending expiries would mean that when bitAsset demand is relatively low compared to short demand, bitAssets would trade at larger discounts to the feed price. Its important to have the right balance for both longs and shorts.

Right now bitusd is trading at an 8.5% premium to the feed price.  It goes both ways.  I'm sure the right formula can be found but shorts are dis advantaged with the 30 day rule.

Any thoughts on this alternative to the short expiration?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,14336.msg186635.html#msg186635

270
Auto routing isn't even going to be really relevant until we have more liquidity and tighter spreads, I think.  At that point we could have either auto routing, or people will probably write arb bots.

Assuming we have blockchain based autorouting, how could an arb bot beat that? Surely an atomic operation is the most efficient way to go across 2 markets?

Once autorouting BitUSD:BTS -> BitBTC:BTS adds to the orderbook of BitUSD:BitBTC, the spreads should tighten when people start to use that market directly.

An arb bot could not beat autorouting, what I meant is that the auto-routing is unlikely to actually happen even if it was in place unless liquidity is high, and spreads are low.  If liquidity gets that high while autorouting support has not been added, the incentive will be there to operate arb bots which could perform almost (though not quite) as well as auto-routing.

Pages: 1 ... 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 [18] 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ... 64