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 - JonnyB

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43
31
General Discussion / Re: Stablecoins are only pegged on one side. They cost more than the feed price.
« on: November 04, 2017, 10:28:42 am »
Quote from: paliboy on November 03, 2017, 08:22:39 am
Quote from: yvv on November 02, 2017, 08:28:45 pm
Exactly! And to fix this, we need to fix margin trading mechanics, which is awkward in BTS. Then, all those margin traders will hopefully come from other exchanges and issue a hell of bitAssets on us.

Any specific suggestion?

IMHO the only real problem is the lack of liquidity... and we are back to chicken-egg problem. At the moment I could buy 2126 bitUSD at feed price +3% and sell 835 bitUSD at feed price -3%. Can we increase these numbers to 1 million on both sides?


You are just stating the obvious, we all know we need better liquidity and market depth. What we need to discuss is how?

This post is about the fact BitAssets are not pegged to stop them rising above the asset they are supposed to be tracking. This is an issue that effects both liquidity and market depth.

Does anyone have any suggestions on how we could fix this issue?

32
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [ALPHA] Trustless deposits/withdrawal of BITCOIN -- proposal & discussion
« on: November 03, 2017, 04:48:29 am »
looking forward to hearing you talk on the mumble hangout tomorrow

33
General Discussion / Re: Stablecoins are only pegged on one side. They cost more than the feed price.
« on: November 03, 2017, 01:11:25 am »
Quote from: FractalNode on November 03, 2017, 12:58:18 am
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on November 02, 2017, 08:00:18 pm
(...) I mean why would you want to pay 1.1 BTC to buy 1 BitBTC or $1.10 to buy 1 BitUSD?
because bitBTC (and other MPA) is counterparty risk free, and OPEN.BTC is not.
1 real BTC is counterparty risk free too

34
General Discussion / Stablecoins are only pegged on one side. They cost more than the feed price.
« on: November 02, 2017, 08:00:18 pm »
Our stablecoins/MPAs/BitAssets cost more than they should do.

The purpose of a stablecoin like BitUSD should be to track the price of USD.
Our BitAssets are successful in making sure the value never drops below the price feed that the asset tracks. (This is because anyone can force settle BitAssets for BTS if there are no willing buyers)

But there is no mechanism to stop the peg drifting above the feed price.

Most BitAssets are constantly trading at a premium to the asset they track and sometimes this premium is up to 20%.

If we want people to use BitAssets surely we need to fix this. I mean why would you want to pay 1.1 BTC to buy 1 BitBTC or $1.10 to buy 1 BitUSD?


35
General Discussion / Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« on: October 27, 2017, 08:30:10 pm »
Quote from: erizo on October 27, 2017, 08:25:35 pm
Quote from: JonnyBitcoin on October 27, 2017, 05:37:34 pm
I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

I see the system inconsistent. SmartCoins are self-assured, but if tomorrow morning the Gateway has disappeared, or has been banned or hacked, who guarantees the collateral?

If I am BitUSD holder and there is a black swan event I know I will receive at least the collateral. What will I receive if the Gateway disappears? BTS? From where?

If it is not possible to find clear answers to these questions that would imply that BitUSD would become a weak asset totally dependent on the Gateway's survival. Crazy.

We are talking about a trustless or near trustless BTC gateway (sidechains.)  We are not talking about a UIA gateway like OPEN.BTC

36
General Discussion / Re: BitShares - Conflict of Interest and NDAs ( Non-Disclosure Agreements )
« on: October 27, 2017, 05:52:27 pm »
JonnyBitcoin - Proxy- have never signed one

37
General Discussion / Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements (NEW)
« on: October 27, 2017, 05:37:34 pm »
I don't think theres any type of fully trustless BTC gateway (sidechain) but some proposed are very secure and would be good enough to use as BTC collateral for smartcoins.

This would be huge! And a real win for bitshares / marketing opportunity.

Just think any bitcoin holder in the world could get a USD loan against their BTC.

For those of you worried that this would damage the value of BTS I disagree because all fees will still ultimately be paid in BTS even when paying or collateralising in SIDE.BTC

38
General Discussion / Re: OpenLedger propose Bitshares 3.0 enhancements
« on: October 23, 2017, 11:39:50 am »
1.) Trustless BTC gateway, (AKA Sidechains) would do more good for bitshares than anything imo.

- Every trade that happens on the Bitshares DEX is an atomic swap. This is different than the cross chain atomic swap you are suggesting.
- Cross chain atomic swaps aren't really compatible with BitShares as Abit points out.
- Stealth is a Fee backed asset I believe.
- Implementing the dividend feature that peerplays have already developed would make sense.
- EOS is going to be the VM graphene chain. If it works well we can cherry pick the code when its built and tested.

39
General Discussion / Re: New idea: Negative interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending of an MPA
« on: October 18, 2017, 07:50:50 pm »
People who keep saying nobody would hold something that loses 5% a year.

think about this.

Everyone who has a HERO margin position is doing just that. holding a position guaranteed to lose 5% a year.

40
General Discussion / Re: will atomic swap make bitshares useless ?
« on: October 18, 2017, 04:13:57 pm »
If bitshares had a trustless bitcoin side chain then you could do atomic swaps with SIDE.BTC and any asset on the BTS DEX

41
General Discussion / Re: New idea: Negative interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending of an MPA
« on: October 18, 2017, 04:10:23 pm »
Quote from: yvv on October 18, 2017, 01:20:20 pm
Quote
The best way to encourage people to borrow MPAs into existence and spend them would be a financial incentive.

AKA High Leverage

Fixed this for you. If you want to incetivise shorters, give them leverage by reducing collateral requirement. After black swan recovery is implemented, this should not be too risky.
You didn't fix it, you suggested an alternative. lower collateral requirements might incentivise shorters but it would make BitUSD less safe.

42
General Discussion / Re: usd margin call
« on: October 18, 2017, 04:07:58 pm »
Your margin call bought back the BitUSD at 10% lower than the feed price to incentivise you to close your positions before you get called or maintain your collateral. Margin calls cost a premium of 10%  to find a seller of BitUSD quickly.
The Maximum short squeeze ratio is 1100 http://cryptofresh.com/a/USD

You are thinking about forced settlement which was changed from 100% to 99% which is different.

43
General Discussion / Re: New idea: Negative interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending of an MPA
« on: October 18, 2017, 12:33:31 pm »
Quote from: fav on October 18, 2017, 11:43:07 am
would you buy something that you KNOW is guaranteed to be less worth tomorrow?

me neither.

I explained in my post.

Nobody will want to hold it long term, just like nobody wants to hold cash long term. But short term its liquid and great for transactions.
 If someone wants to dump $100k of bitcoin or ether they can do on uphold, bitfinex, bitstamp because they are deep liquid markets with tiny spreads. It's impossible on the BTS DEX because the supply of BitUSD is so low and illiquid.

With a NIR MPA you could sell large amounts of bitcoin, ether etc to exit your position quickly then move from the highly liquid (NIR MPA) to something else.

44
General Discussion / New idea: Negative interest rates to encourage borrowing and spending of an MPA
« on: October 18, 2017, 11:29:33 am »
OK i've got a new idea.

If we want to increase the supply of BitUSD and BitCNY we need to encourage people to borrow it in to existence and spend it.

The best way to encourage people to borrow MPAs into existence and spend them would be a financial incentive.

AKA Negative interest rates.
So the opposite of HERO which increases by 5% a year. We create an MPA that loses 5% each year.

This is what many central banks have been talking about doing for a while but can't because physical inhibits it.

Why would someone want to hold an asset that loses 5% a year?  They won't want to hold it for long but they will like it because theres a lot of it available. Not wanting to hold an asset that has a large supply will create good liquidity.

Why would there be a lot available? Because anyone who borrowed and spent it would have a margin position that would get smaller every year.

Still thinking this idea through in my head, but theres potential here I'm sure.


45
General Discussion / Re: Latest Market Making / Liquidity Bots for BitShares
« on: October 17, 2017, 12:32:50 pm »
btsbots still works afaik. I think one of the biggest barriers to liquidity is the low supply of BitUSD and BitCNY meaning they often trades at a premium. We should think about creating a base supply  (a net long BTS position) of BitUSD and BitCNY with a worker proposal.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 43

Page created in 0.191 seconds with 23 queries.