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 - George_Bitspark

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP22
« on: October 03, 2018, 05:15:11 am »
Absolutely this is IMO the most important thing for Bitshares right now. Happy to back this however we can. Looking for input from Core team on implementation wise what can be done. Regarding blacklisting I do not support that in the existing BSIP22, I also think the 'DPOSHub' is probably out of scope of this too, perhaps can be added in future by the UI team.

@DL not sure what youre saying with multi level proxies, please be more specific how this relates to BSIP22?

General Discussion / Re: Consider derailing feed price
« on: October 01, 2018, 11:37:12 am »
Putting a Coinmarketcap chart here is only for reference. Afaik no witness is relying on coinmarketcap to produce price feeds. I don't disagree that coinmarketcap sometimes shows inaccurate data. However, from a macro perspective, data showing there is fine.

It's literally quoted as the reference chart and data source in BSIP42 documentation. For the reasons above I cannot agree it's 'fine'.

I guess you as a big bitUSD holder can't accept that 1 bitUSD value far less than 1 Fiat USD. But would you accept that 1 bitUSD value more than 1 Fiat USD? As a big bitUSD creator/borrower, of course I don't want that 1 bitUSD value too much more than 1 Fiat USD. In short, let's be fair, don't play double standards. If we don't fairly treat borrowers/creators, it's hard for bitUSD to have sufficient supply. BSIP42 is looking for fair.

The 'value' of a bitUSD may fluctuate day to day depending on market access to bitUSD- maybe there is a an excess, maybe a shortage and thats intended. As i hold bitUSD, I hold bitUSD, not real USD. So I acknowledge the asset may fluctuate in value vs an actual United States Dollar. If you think its underpriced then you can buy it, if you think its overpriced you can sell it. Sure as an individual stakeholder you are welcome to benchmark vs exchange 1, 2, 3 and so on. Whether it is fair or not is not relevant, its what the market is pricing it as, thats the price. If its differs too much from the price maybe I sell it or acquire more. So feed producers have a vested interest in ensuring its accurate.

The purpose of a price feed is for price feed producers to analyse this and any other variables they see necessary and then produce a price. I would hope there is more diversity in prices from feed producers in future.

IMHO bots WON'T work when there is a supply-side issue (either shortage or oversupply). Using trading bots to try to maintain the peg is the approach adopted by NuBits and IMHO has failed.
Actually there is NO instant opportunity when there is a premium or discount if you've tried running bots. There do have long-term opportunity but risks are much higher, E.G. margin calls.
A slight premium or discount is fine, but IMHO it's not acceptable if it's too big. Personally I think the threshold is +/-1%.

Absolutely not, the mechanism of arbitrage is entirely different to Nubits, that is how they managed their price feed, nothing to do with arbitrage. A simple bot can do this:

Bot A: Huobi
Has balance of: USDT, BTS
Market: USDT/BTS

Bot B: DEX
Has balance of bitUSD, BTS
Market: bitUSD/BTS

If price on Huobi is < DEX. Bot A Buys BTS, and Bot B sells BTS. This is done instantly at same time.
If Cheaper on DEX, Bot B buys BTS and Bot A sells BTS.

Over time, one bot will have a excess in one asset and the other will have limited supply and the trader will need to make an intelligent decision on how to balance those assets again in the most efficient manner.

The trader makes a profit depending on what he bought and sold at after fees. This is an easy arbitrage that can be done and its not hard. Whether there is supply of bitUSD or not is irrelevant, that will be the reflected in the price, if there is not much bitUSD then like a properly functioning market the price for bitUSD should be higher.

This is simply wrong. As mentioned above, nobody actually use coinmarketcap for price feeds. Also OpenLedger's operation has little impact on the prices so far.

As I said it's quoted in the actual BSIP, so yes I'd say it is used as a price reference. It's also referenced through this and other threads. I mentioned OL because as noted, people seem to reference he bitUSD price on CMC and the bitUSD markets of which CMC bases their 'price' of bitUSD on is derived by the bitUSD markets they have access to- which are OL markets ( I have no idea what openKRM or openXEM are, but if their prices spike, then it will influence the prices CMC uses to calculate bitUSD.

Therefore as I noted before, CMC cannot be used as a reference. You need multiple sources and it just so turns out we have people who are paid to do this and they're called price feed producers.

General Discussion / Re: Consider derailing feed price
« on: October 01, 2018, 08:36:23 am »
Ok firstly, as a holder of about 860k BitUSD these are my thoughts on this:

1. This whole discussion is based on a faulty premise using coinmarketcap chart data. Does the OP and others realize how coinmarketcap calculate their price data? Its based on a weighted avg of the exchanges they list and markets trading that asset in addition to an external USD/BTC price feed, markets that are low volume or strange pairings can affect the 'coinmarketcap price' by quite alot when people buy $20 of BTS for $5/BTS it reports a price of $5 for that market. Obviously that should not be taken seriously as a price of BTS as only $20 was traded however it is folded into the calculation of BTS on Coinmarketcap.

Secondly the USD price displayed on coinmarket cap is derived from the relevant BTC/USD price- a subjective metric for us when determining a real price as it relies on one price feed, Coinmarketcap. For example, if the weighted avg 'coinmarketcap price' on Bitcoin is $6500 (and it its subject to the same problems on a larger scale as above) then when calculating a BTS/USD price it takes the BTS/BTC * BTC/USD in order to determine a final dollar price of BTS. Thats two trades, including a totally subjective metric of the coinmarketcap BTC price which determines what they price BTS as. The bitcoin/USD price is entirely out of our control so when looking at a coinmarketcap price for BTS you should take this as a massive grain of salt as its not going to be accurate. Its basically relying on an external feed called coinmarketcap rather than our existing decentralized list of price feed producers on the BTS DEX.

2. Having a price premium or discount is a good thing and incentivises arbitrage and is only natural, its a feature not a bug.

If there is a profitable premium to trade between BTS on the DEX vs the CEX in bear or bull  market then we should be promoting that as an opportunity not trying to 'adjust' things via central planning so that there is no opportunity. It is an exciting opportunity to create bots or trade manually in these markets at these times and if there is a premium, fantastic advertise it and the market will ensure its not there for much longer. Part of our roadmap is adding bots to do exactly this (as we currently do similar things in bitcoin markets on CEXs) I dont see how this is a problem. Yep I get how there can be a liquidity short squeeze, thats the market giving you price signals on their valuation of a decentralized asset. 

3. BSIP42 does not have Sparks support and we would prefer the following alternatives:

* Better price feeds means voting out price feeds which the market consider inaccurate
* If anything, bitUSD could likely look at adjusting MCR if necessary by +/- 5% and measure the results. If nothing tangible then it can be reverted.
* Parties concerns about price premiums and discounts should actively promote these opportunities to trading community on social channels and we as a community should look towards building tools that can easily take advantage of situations like this, for example bots that can exploit these opportunities. Expanding DEXbot is an ideal use case here.   

edit: Looking at the bitUSD markets on Coinmarketcap their USD price is derived from its almost entirely from Openledgers markets anyway with only about 3/20 markets having sufficient volume to be taken somewhat seriously, the others can as per above skew the accurate price of BitUSD or BTS. If OL have some issue with one of their altcoin markets then this will massively affect the price calc for BTS/bitUSD and feed through to inaccurate prices on CMC. This happens often when Openledger may have withdraw issues for a coin for have delays in issuing it like openEOS etc.

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Compliance Work
« on: October 19, 2017, 02:38:15 am »
Pretty sure you know my position based on the lengthy Telegram discussion but here is my thoughts on this for the community who did not read through the hundreds of comments. A rigorous debate is essential for Bitshares to grow and improve.

1. This is a bad idea. No regulator cares about anything that a foundation for a blockchain (in their eyes some magical internet money people) has to say. A regulators' job is not to investigate the technicalities of a blockchain, thats irrelevant to their decisionmaking. What is relevant are businesses in their jurisdiction who would come under their regulatory oversight. Regulators engage with actual business on/off ramps into crypto, not the blockchains themselves which therefore means this worker is a non-starter to begin. Regulators regulate businesses.

2. This is a BTS shareholder subsidy for businesses. It is not the job of BTS shareholders to subsidise the costs of some business who elect to operate in a regulated exchange in their jurisdiction. Why not subside gateways in Russia? Thailand? Colombia? Each jurisdiction has different regulation and the only person that can speak to them about opening a regulated entity is the entity itself. The onus is on the business/gateway to seek regulatory permission, not the blockchain holders themselves.

3. This has no real objectives. If a random company called Bittrex USA decides to delist Bitshares thats a decision for them, why again must BTS holders subsidise decisions of a company? Its irrelevant if the reasoning is because of regulatory uncertainty,  maybe Bittrex shouldnt be in USA, its not my problem or anyone elses they find it hard to do business there. The objectives around 'responding to regulators' is also fairly vague, I can tell you that regulators in asia are not even going to return the emails of a blockchain foundation nor care about what they have to say because it's irrelevant to their decisionmaking. Telling them Bitshares is not a security because of X and Y is also not useful, its the gateway that is regulated not the blockchain, so even if they agree with you it wont impact any decisions. A gateway accepts fiat? Ok they're regulated and need license X, whatever blockchains they're using doesnt matter.

4. People would really get behind a worker for marketing if someone is willing to step up and do that 'on behalf of bitshares' but a regulatory representation is an entirely different thing, especially from a few people who are unknown to the community.

Random Discussion / Bitspark is launching Zephyr rewards token soon
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:47:46 am »
Just wanted to throw the question out there, has anyone had any experience with rewards tokens?
If so would you kindly share your experience? Bitspark is about to launch the rewards token. 

URL link:

General Discussion / Zephyr token is coming soon in less than 3hours
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:43:43 am »
Bitspark is about to launch the rewards token and we want to know has anyone had any experience with rewards tokens?
If so would you kindly share your experience?

URL link:

Bitspark / Zephyr token is launching soon
« on: October 06, 2017, 07:36:29 am »
Just wanted to throw the question out there, has anyone had any experience with rewards tokens?
If so would you kindly share your experience? We at Bitspark are about to launch the rewards token. 

URL link:

We recently announced our Bounty campaign. Please have a look here ( ZEPH on offer to participants.


Welcome to the conclusion to our 3 part series on our switch to Bitshares for remittances culminating in the launch of our reward token Zephyr. The idea is simple, offer people a monetary incentive to join our remittance network and undertake economically beneficial actions in the network with a percentage of fees going toward buying back tokens on the DEX. There are some further subtle layers to this but we think this is the ideal way to accelerate our reach into new markets and grow the overall user base for Bitshares pegged assets.

Feel free to let us know your thoughts and feedback and we look forward to the next stage with the Bitshares community. Some important media announcements coming out in the next few weeks stay tuned!

This would be very useful as currently the only way to do this is with a third party Bot- BTSbots is also closed source. Having this done onchain would be good for liquidity providers who, when the bid is higher than the settlement price, short something into existence and sell for a profit then need to buy it back (feed price originally paid ideally) to close the position.

General Discussion / Re: Bitspark Switching to Bitshares for Remittances
« on: August 10, 2017, 03:26:49 pm »
This means there is one less hurdle for liquidity in new markets and there is also a natural incentive to create more liquidity- if there is a rising demand for a fiat pegged cryptocurrency then it will be trading higher than its real price so you can make money in creating (locking up BTS collateral) and selling it to the market.

This is not that easy. By issuing bitAssets backed by BTS collateral, you expose yourself to BTS price volatility. This process needs some smart management.

P.S. A number of very good points are made in the article.  +5%

Our intention is that we wont be shorting them into existence ourselves due to this risk but being the constant buyer in the market for traders who do. Our first obligation is the safe custody of our customers money. Over time we will be able to accumulate enough of the smartcoins to fully switch over our services from BTC and our existing liquidity providers to using only bitassets on the DEX. We will be expanding upon some of the specifics in the coming weeks in follow up posts.

General Discussion / Bitspark Switching to Bitshares for Remittances
« on: August 10, 2017, 04:24:00 am »
Hi all!

We have some big news today, we at Bitspark ( will be switching to Bitshares in future for our remittances, starting with our recent deal with the UN ( ) in Tajikistan.

Heres why we came to this conclusion:

General Discussion / Re: Bit20 - The cryptocurrency index fund
« on: July 27, 2017, 05:09:46 am »
Great thanks for the summary Wackou and EstefanTT, indeed more implementations of the price feed script should be something brought up with other witnesses for other assets aswell.

General Discussion / Re: Bit20 - The cryptocurrency index fund
« on: July 22, 2017, 02:07:26 pm »
Thanks for the investigation Wackou, so am I correct in saying that if the price feed had more witnesses for this asset and if the price feed is an average of witness feeds, this can help reduce black swans in future? Although such a sharp divergence in feed pricing likely still would black swan the asset even with twice the amount of witnesses correct?

I have a few questions, just trying to understand this more clearly. So in buying this asset it will redeem at date X 1:1 with the tether you hold elsewhere? Who will determine you own tether and that it has defaulted? Is this a UIA? It will only redeem the amount of USDTETHERDEFAULT that you buy, correct? So how will it cover Tether which you hold which has defaulted because amount of Tether will always be > this asset? Thanks!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4