The purpose of forced settlement is really to give market participants confidence SmartCoins are backed by actual collateral that can be redeemed for most of their value in an emergency. So even forced settlement at 0.95 would be very attractive.

Absolutely, the purpose of settlement is to give market participants confidence that our assets are backed by collateral. The 100% settlement at the peg means our assets are 100% collateralized, which i certainly prefer. Any discount from that, like 0.95, just means we'd be advertising smartcoins with 95% collateral banking. I don't see that as beneficial.

All market participants go into trades knowing the rules of the game ahead of time. i like 100% collateralilzation over any arbitrary fractional value, but if the system changed (which it changes too often IMO), then i'd just rationally discount the value on the long side and price my bids at 95% or whatever the collateral value. All we'd do is skew the bid-ask window in the other direction.

Like i've repeated many times on this forum, i do see value in providing incentive to traders willing to short assets into existence. Right now that compensation is implicit with high spreads  and shorts get leveraged upside. That's been enough for me to trade frequently on both sides of the market. However, if there is a big desire in this community to further compensate short traders, then i suggest directly subsidizing shorts with some yield on BTS locked in collateral; penalizing buy-side traders who want to settle assets at peg is not the best way to provide this subsidy.

The "supporting stake" column means how much stake has chosen to vote for the specified worker. Just ignore the colors and other workers, focus on these 2 workers.

Because there is no longer a way to vote "no" on a worker. So here comes 2 workers,
* if you agree to change, vote for the "yes" worker;
* if you don't agree to change, vote for the "no" worker;
* if you want to stay neutral, or you're not aware of this voting, don't vote.

So the way to read the contest here is that a 266M BTS stake is voting YES and 144M voting NO?

Quote from: Chris4210 on May 26, 2016, 04:22:43 pm

Chronos will produce some videos and I am planning to start an additional beginners guide for BitShares too. Currently, I am working on updating the main BitShares.org site plus collecting material for a BitShares Wikipedia page. Ken told me that there were a group of people working on that for Bitshares 1.0 but got run over by the fast development of BitShares 2.0 . I would like to pick up here and provide more info for BitShares itself in the next weeks.

The Forum is a important part of the community and has tons of value for beginners and experts.

Im new here but dex is pretty much intuitive for guys that already use exchanges. Understanding bitshares will require take goooooood time reading the docs  it is a must. I took a look at videos from 2014, but you cant really understand it in full without docs n some reasearch in forum n google, for me that is the way it is....complex, but addicted, is good to take time to understamd it, it is like a book

yeah, ultimately i'd like to see more trading manuals and user documentation for the DEX; maybe some of us who trade actively can put together best practices, lessons learned, etc. For me, it has been all about learning by doing, starting small and scaling up when i see opportunity.

I  am working on developing base on dpos ,  and I have run a new testing chain  ,there are several new excited feature are finished
1. dividend feature of asset ,
2. platform feature ,
3. forecast market ,
and the test chain is on http://139.162.63.211

awesome! how are you funding the dividend feature? can you describe a little more how it would work?

For now I'm just on the forum but considering getting active on steem as well soon.

IMO the forum shouldn't go away. It's a different style of discussion, we could use both.

agreed, the forum should not go away...there's far too much valuable information on here, plus it's part of our history.

As one of the community's most active traders and from a financial market theory perspective, i support @pc perspective on this. I also share @Empirical1.2 frustrations in having many short positions force settled on me; however, I've been on the settlement initiation side of trades many times and it is a very valuable feature.

@pc is correct that this is mainly an issue in bear markets. From personal experience, it has SUCKED pouring more and more collateral into my shorts just to keep them open, but that's a reasonable price to pay for the leverage on the upside when market conditions reverse, and for the fact that I've sold all of my short assets at premiums to begin with.

#1 priority is to guarantee parity with the underlying asset. Forced settlement seems the best way to do this. We cannot compromise on this priority or we lose one of our biggest value propositions in the smartcoin market.

#2 there are times when asset holders, mainly Chinese CNY from my experience, value immediate liquidation and so put their assets up for sale at discounts to the feed price; this is where market makers like myself and @JonnyBitcoin come in, buy at a discount, and settle for some risky profit (risky in that the feed can fluctuation in the next 24 hours).

#3 we all know the rules of the game going into any trade, these are built into our expectations ex ante, and so the prices we choose to initiate ought to compensate for the risk of forced settlement.

What could be improved is the old idea we've punted in this community about compensating short positions with some sort of yield on collateral. This would further incentivize short initiations, especially in bear markets. Once we're back to a bull market, it'll be irrelevant.

With Bytemaster and (i'm assuming) others leaving an active role in Bitshares, who do we have left? Which projects are they working on?