16
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.
17
General Discussion / Re: Discussion for the market making contest, stage two
« on: November 11, 2019, 10:06:50 am »
I would go down the USDT gateway route.
18
General Discussion / Lack of development leaves no reason for investors to buy BTS
« on: November 06, 2019, 12:11:10 pm »
Since refund worker has been voted in and funding ceased to development projects investors see no reason to purchase BTS. This will only get worse when software we offer becomes unusable when nodes go offline thanks to infrastructure worker receiving no funds.
So far I see no benefit of refund workers as BTS continues to be out performed by other cryptocurrencies. You need only look on the dex at open.eos-bts. open.xrp-bts & open.eth-bts to see that BTS has been outperformed by 20-30% since September. BTS has also dropped down to 67th place on coinmarketcap.
Refund workers have so far provided no benefit to BTS price and continue to make BitShares lag our competitors on the development front in a highly competitive and fast moving industry.
So far I see no benefit of refund workers as BTS continues to be out performed by other cryptocurrencies. You need only look on the dex at open.eos-bts. open.xrp-bts & open.eth-bts to see that BTS has been outperformed by 20-30% since September. BTS has also dropped down to 67th place on coinmarketcap.
Refund workers have so far provided no benefit to BTS price and continue to make BitShares lag our competitors on the development front in a highly competitive and fast moving industry.
19
General Discussion / Re: is withdraw of ESCODEX down?
« on: October 30, 2019, 09:55:28 am »
The Escodex exchange closed down in october, they have now deleted their twitter page. Also worth mentioning DynEX exchnage has also shut down.
20
General Discussion / Re: worker for market cap management?
« on: October 01, 2019, 03:21:01 pm »
This is the most desperate & ridiculous idea I have seen in these forums. Those who have bitcrab set as proxy should remove ASAP.
21
General Discussion / Re: Committee Fund Operation Review
« on: September 12, 2019, 10:32:02 am »
This is, for once, starting to sound like an operation that makes sense. Bitcrabs suggested call price of 0.1 sounds reasonable, we should also agree a target price at which efforts should be made to lower the call price. For example, if price hits 0.15 all available funds are used to lower call price.
If we can avoid BBF selling BTS, we should.
If we can avoid BBF selling BTS, we should.
22
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker] Bitshares UI Worker Proposal for 2019
« on: September 05, 2019, 08:57:13 am »
This is such a shame, those voting refund 400k should seriously consider the harm they are doing to bitshares future.
Do you know if the UI team plan to stick around whilst funding is stopped? I am worried that we will loose these talented devs.
Do you know if the UI team plan to stick around whilst funding is stopped? I am worried that we will loose these talented devs.
23
General Discussion / Re: suggestion on new OMO fund
« on: September 01, 2019, 03:50:45 pm »Seriously? You're kicking workers in the butt who provide actual value, and at the same time you propose to throw millions of BTS out of the window, AGAIN?the worker mechanism is just like a man to seek better life by selling blood.
yes, when he is strong and in good health, maybe there is no problem, but when he is seriously ill and is going to die, I don't think I can suggest him to sell blood without stop.
please be aware that this is just a poll worker, not a worker that get BTS from the reserve pool, the plan is to use the accumulated BTS and smartcoin market fee in committee-account.
the BTS ecosystem is so weak that about 2M BTS dump can make a big fall in price, that's why I suggest to stop the workers temporarily.
my idea is that the OMO will help the ecosystem to recover, when the ecosystem return to be in good health, at least the price return to above 0.3CNY and the margin call orders in CNY and USD markets disappear, we can consider to recover the support to some important workers.
Unfortunately you have zero credibility when it comes to market operations, you were warned by myself and various others about what would happen last time and now you want to restart them and do the same again? You will fail in your attempt to hold up prices and end up making the situation worse.
I look forward to seeing Thule's proposal so the community at least has an alternative to your terrible guidance.
In times like these many people have underwater positions and will try ANYTHING in order to save their asses, the community needs to realise that sometimes it is OK to do nothing, rather than rushing into another bitcrab mismanagement that hurts us even more.
Ever heard the expression, "the trend is your friend"? Well the trend is down, so any thoughts of buying BTS with community funds is betting against the trend, take that into consideration when you vote for bitcrab to open up margin long positions again.
24
General Discussion / Re: suggestion on new OMO fund
« on: September 01, 2019, 10:03:13 am »
I am happy for existing funds to be re used if included in a worker proposal that gets voted in for a reasonable amount of time. Using a poll is unacceptable IMO.
25
General Discussion / Re: suggestion on new OMO fund
« on: September 01, 2019, 09:47:53 am »
The commitee should absolutely burn the existing funds, settle any smartcoins held to lower the margin sell wall and send BTS back to reserve pool. If you want to try and restart OMO then do it through worker proposal.
The original OMO was a failed operation, a massive failure. The operation should have been shut down and funds returned, rather than being held onto in hope that a quick forum post and poll can allow you to convince yourself that you have authorization to reuse funds. Why should you be able to use community funds on the result of a poll when everyone else has to compete with Refund 400k worker?
Return existing funds and create a worker proposal with proper write up of strategy, a quick forum post is unacceptable. If you want to use community funds, you should expect to go through the same process as everyone else.
*To clarify, I understand that a poll is a worker but this is about reaching the funding threshold as required by worker proposals rather than just beating the opposing poll.
The original OMO was a failed operation, a massive failure. The operation should have been shut down and funds returned, rather than being held onto in hope that a quick forum post and poll can allow you to convince yourself that you have authorization to reuse funds. Why should you be able to use community funds on the result of a poll when everyone else has to compete with Refund 400k worker?
Return existing funds and create a worker proposal with proper write up of strategy, a quick forum post is unacceptable. If you want to use community funds, you should expect to go through the same process as everyone else.
*To clarify, I understand that a poll is a worker but this is about reaching the funding threshold as required by worker proposals rather than just beating the opposing poll.
26
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Worker Proposal] - Decentralized 2019 Sponsoring and Partnership
« on: June 24, 2019, 08:41:54 am »
Sounds really good, I support this.
27
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" Price discussion
« on: June 20, 2019, 07:51:05 am »
The problem I see with using last price is you could be called with not enough liquidity to pay back the loan.
If a liquidation price was used borrowers could be called at the earliest point to return maximum amount to lenders if liquidity dried up.
Having liquidation prices would also make spotting opportunities for market makers easy. They could see liquidation prices in a market far cheaper than on external markets and place orders to try and benefit from a liquidation. Liquidation prices would also deter users borrowing/ lending amounts larger than can be liquidated at a reasonable price.
Collateral and asset being lent should be priced the same as they are the same asset.
If a liquidation price was used borrowers could be called at the earliest point to return maximum amount to lenders if liquidity dried up.
Having liquidation prices would also make spotting opportunities for market makers easy. They could see liquidation prices in a market far cheaper than on external markets and place orders to try and benefit from a liquidation. Liquidation prices would also deter users borrowing/ lending amounts larger than can be liquidated at a reasonable price.
Collateral and asset being lent should be priced the same as they are the same asset.
28
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" Price discussion
« on: June 20, 2019, 07:36:27 am »
Manipulation happens in all markets, you cant stop it. People are also stupid and want easy money, you cant change it. Limiting the availability of this feature or its usefulness to address either of these facts would be short sighted.
What we can do though is highlight risks involved and allow users to make their own decisions.
If someone tries to lend/ borrow a large amount relative to how liquid the market is, they can easily be warned.
Reducing features due to perceived potential market manipulation based on how liquid a market is, is naive. I could be the sole market maker, create a healthy liquid market, tricking the blockchain into thinking it's less risky because of the great liquidity but in reality I am the only market maker and pull my orders at any point.
The above could be done with 5 or 10 market makers working together so tell me... how does the chain determine risk? It cant. All we can do is advise and warn about potential scenarios.
Perhaps more market data/ information is needed to help users determine risk. Such as how many accounts are providing liquidity and how much each user is providing but even this can be gamed by using multiple accounts.
Anyway... I think we have moved slightly off topic and need to refocus on how price should be determined.
What we can do though is highlight risks involved and allow users to make their own decisions.
If someone tries to lend/ borrow a large amount relative to how liquid the market is, they can easily be warned.
Reducing features due to perceived potential market manipulation based on how liquid a market is, is naive. I could be the sole market maker, create a healthy liquid market, tricking the blockchain into thinking it's less risky because of the great liquidity but in reality I am the only market maker and pull my orders at any point.
The above could be done with 5 or 10 market makers working together so tell me... how does the chain determine risk? It cant. All we can do is advise and warn about potential scenarios.
Perhaps more market data/ information is needed to help users determine risk. Such as how many accounts are providing liquidity and how much each user is providing but even this can be gamed by using multiple accounts.
Anyway... I think we have moved slightly off topic and need to refocus on how price should be determined.
29
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" Price discussion
« on: June 20, 2019, 07:13:45 am »
Absolutely agree with George's comments above, great point about liquidity is relative to desired position size.
All mechanics of this bsip should focus only on the market in question, feeds for external prices should not be used for so many reasons.
All mechanics of this bsip should focus only on the market in question, feeds for external prices should not be used for so many reasons.
30
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: BSIP70 "Lending for Margin Trading" Price discussion
« on: June 20, 2019, 06:35:28 am »
I don't think "price" for calls etc should be determined from feeds and other external markets. "Price" should be determined from the market the loans relate to. Perhaps a full liquidisation of position could be used for price somehow. This price would reflect any lack of liquidity.
I also don't think any markets/ assets should be excluded from margin trading, if the market is illiquid lenders should price in the higher risk accordingly.
If bitshares core can determine illiquid markets, rather than blocking the feature it should warn users of the risk and suggest higher rates.
I also don't think any markets/ assets should be excluded from margin trading, if the market is illiquid lenders should price in the higher risk accordingly.
If bitshares core can determine illiquid markets, rather than blocking the feature it should warn users of the risk and suggest higher rates.
