Quote from: Customminer on December 18, 2018, 11:19:45 am

BSIP-0023 is somewhat relevant, however it focuses on external cryptocurrency snapshots: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0023.md

Several of the bitcoin forks have market caps 10x BTS, a single UIA worth billions could justify sharedrop BSIP research 👌

@Customminer, we do not currently see a Use Case for this particular BSIP.
If you have one in mind, please share with the community and let's talk!

Imagine if one of the Bitcoin forks had been performed onto an UIA on the BTS DEX, potentially adding billions of marketcap value to assets held on the BTS DEX. Imagine instead of stagnant crypto projects dying, instead they migrated onto the BTS DEX via a decentralized sharedrop process? Your idea is focused on internal sharedrops, 23 referenced external sharedrop targets for internal sharedrops.

I do like the idea of sharedropping onto asset holders, even better if we could allocate sharedrop distribution based on price feed style fed sharedrop targets using external statistics, so rather than say rewarding holders of an asset you could reward users for completing computation on an external system, or perhaps sharedrop targets based on complex es-query results instead of on-chain calculations.

During the bitUSD GS, don't forget to check out Hertz as an alternative to short 👍

Hertz is still active whilst bitUSD is in a GS state 👌

Still hoping the following witnesses will take an interest in publishing price feeds for Hz:

Configured price feed publishers yet to publish price feeds:
witness.yao
witness.still
xn-delegate
bhuz
elmato
in.abit
abc123
delegate-zhaomu
xeldal
winex.witness
witness.hiblockchain
magicwallet.witness
bangzi

BSIP-0023 is somewhat relevant, however it focuses on external cryptocurrency snapshots: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0023.md

Several of the bitcoin forks have market caps 10x BTS, a single UIA worth billions could justify sharedrop BSIP research 👌

> 1. Was BitUSD mismanaged? If so, by whom and why?

bad debt holders mismanaged their margin positions, committee potentially mismanaged the configuration of bitUSD, feed publishers mismanaged the application of bsip42.

> 2. Was it the fault of BSIP42?

Not entirely, but bsip42 should never have been applied to bitUSD - afaik only CNY was in scope but some chose to apply it to many bitassets.

> 3. How will BitCNY be saved from the same fate?

Manipulation, or by increasing the price of BTS.

> 4. Was the GS inevitable?

Yes, the external market value of 1 BTS dropped like 95% within one year, we were bound to have squeezed margin positions to their breaking point.

Do not the worker proposal voting mechanism be  manipulated!?

Worker proposal mechanism counts BTS as vote weight, not individual accounts on a forum which is notoriously plagued with spam accounts to the degree that account creation is now manual. BTS vote weight is a far superior voting mechanism than a forum poll; I don't trust these forum polls at all - they're only good for gauging interest.

Replace BTS with another asset for fees? No thank you, i'd far prefer for the reserve pool to fill up with collected fees during downtrends like these.

If you're mourning bitUSD's GS state, use an alternative bitasset like CNY or Hertz instead of proposing changing how Bitshares core funding mechanism works.

The fastest way for bitUSD to recover is for BTS price to increase, I seriously cannot see how reducing reasons to buy BTS can be beneficial towards this goal.

Also please stop using the FUD term 'black swan', it was relevant when Dan created the blog post about how there wasn't recovery mechanisms for bitassets in global settlement states, but now we've got BSIP 18 so there are now multiple recovery routes - no longer definable as a black swan.

How about we start punishing bad debt holders? Stripping them of their LTM would be the simplest option.