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.
It's also possible that the "if" will not happen. If the price of your order is competitive, IMHO it will be filled quite soon in a liquid market. Being able to buy a large amount without affecting the market trading price is a stupid design.The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
QuoteAlternative proposal - disable (permanently) the following centralized permissions in bitCNY/bitUSD:This is off-topic.
White list
Override authority
Transfer restricted
Disable force settle
Disable confidential
The difference is that without force settlement there might as well be no backing collateral, especially if nobody buys your sell order entirely within 24hrs of placing it at/around the settlement price.In current situation, I concern more about forced settlements than black swan or global settlements. IMHO forced settlements are needed. For better user experience, perhaps we should match force-settle "orders" with limit orders when prices of limit orders are better than settlement price for the settler.
if then, why not disable force settlement and just let the users place buy orders in market if they want to convert bitCNY to BTS? what's the difference?
The proposed operation enables potential investors to "bid" additional collateral for taking over part of the debt (or all of it). When enough bids have been made to cover the full outstanding debt, and all of them are sufficiently collateralized (in terms of price feed and MCR), the settlement_fund and the bids are turned into call positions. Finally, the settlement_price is removed from the asset, which revives it.
If the available bids cover more than the outstanding debt, bids with a higher collateral/debt ratio are preferred over those with a lower ratio. The intent is to turn the competition among investors into better collateralized calls, which is in the interest of the MPA holders.
If you don't want the tokens then you're free to sell them as you see fit, I wouldn't let the economic policies get in the way of claiming your sharedrop. I'm sure people would be interested in picking up some cheap WLS on the BTS DEX.Can anyone explain why whaleshares doesn't have the inflation protection for vested balances that steem has?AFAIK you cannot powerdown until mid october, and the rate of powerdown is affected by the platform's inflation rate.
Why should I *not* claim the sharedrop, withdraw and sell as quickly as the rules allow?
Yes, that's what I meant with "as quickly as the rules allow".I'm not sure about inflation protection, do you mean receiving rewards for held stakepower over time?
STEEM pays 90% of inflation into the vested steem pool, which looks like "interest" on vested steem / steem power. Apparently WLS doesn't do that, so effectively vested WLS are losing value due to inflation.
Thanks.AFAIK you cannot powerdown until mid october, and the rate of powerdown is affected by the platform's inflation rate.
Can anyone explain why whaleshares doesn't have the inflation protection for vested balances that steem has?
Why should I *not* claim the sharedrop, withdraw and sell as quickly as the rules allow?
502 Bad GatewaySame, can't connect to this.
You can't do this through the UI yet, but it's in the works: https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/issues/1537I really think Bitshares needs to find a way to collateralise with bitcoin instead of BTS. (don't worry BTS will still have value because its need to pay fees)You can just create another (private) MPA e.g. YOUR.USD backed by YOUR.BTC.
Yes we could create bitUSD backed by OPEN.BTC but as a centralised IOU people won't trust it. Hence the need for a trustless BTC / sidechain.ACCT/trustless BTC (and other cryptos) is a good proposal & on the core roadmap, but people are also seemingly willing to trust entities like USDT which may be using cryptocurrency as backing collateral - if an UIA had the marketcap of USDT with semi-proven backing collateral (1up on USDT lol) then that'd bring a lot of value to the BTS DEX (fees at least).
"reference_asset": {"name": "Multipass.USD", "amount": 1, "feed_price": bitUSD.median_feed_price}
"allowed_backing": {
"BTC": {"allowed_tokens": [<gateway(s)>.BTC, bitBTC], "feed_price": (reference_asset["feed_price"]/bitBTC.median_feed_price)},
"ETH": {"allowed_tokens": [<gateway(s)>.ETH, bitETH], "feed_price": (reference_asset["feed_price"]/bitETH.median_feed_price)},
"USD": {"allowed_tokens": [<gateway(s)>.USD, bitUSD], "feed_price": (reference_asset["feed_price"]/bitUSD.median_feed_price)},
"BTS": {"allowed_tokens": [BTS], "feed_price": (1/reference_asset["feed_price"])},
}
