过犹不及，该解喂价了。

算了,不说了.

现在有几天的窗口期，不然下一个窗口期要比较长了。

Reason of margin call in trading practice not only low collateralize but and request owners their assets for withdraw. Brokers use assets of clients for provide it other clients which want use short-operations, but if clients-owners of assets want go away from this broker and broker not have enough free assets - broker can do request back provided assets at shorters. Analogically there is - holders MPA provide VALUE for borrowers, which want use short-operations, and have full right get VALUE back when they want away. They not obligate wait when borrowers gaming in shorts or positions of shorters will be not enough collateralized. And this economic model was there is. MPA holders get assets and use their on such terms, and borrowers give borrow on this terms. Changing terms - changes balance in side preference for borrowers without use opinions MPA-holders.
See, in last day bitRuble lost 10% value. Bitruble-holders provide liquidity - BTS-holders - No. In such situation MPA-holders not have mechanism get provided VALUE back in full volume. Their value was stolen by decision of Abit.

I just get what you want to express is “i want to get the enough and cheap bts from the debtor as i like”.

in last day bitRuble lost 10% value

?

The price of BTS has fallen 10% in the last days! and remember: the MSSR of bitRuble is 1.1 .

You didn't understand the market of Bitasset and just know a little about how it works.

Bitruble-holders provide liquidity - BTS-holders - No.

You can't pick out who is Bitruble holder and BTS holder！

You think bitruble holders provide the liquidity and BTS holders didn't, so go to settlement the bts holders, but don't want and try to settlement the debtor as the debtor provides the liquidity of Bitruble.

You want eggs and want more cheap eggs, then you want to kill the chicken, very clever.

You want liquidity，make a market bot for it.

The system has the duty and obligation to protect the debtor‘s collateral not to be violated when their CR is higher than MCR, this is the first thing and the debtor's right, other's right can't infringe this right.

In trading practice brokers have right margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level. Here also was such rules. Now this rules changed, and changed in 1-side-way for open contracts. Not all MPA-holders may traders - they not must provide higher prices - they clients Bitshares DAC and must get nominal value if want go away from this platform. If abit want to get an asset with different rules - will create a new. Change significant terms on the fly for open and using contacts - very bad practice.

In trading practice brokers have right margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level.

Please tell me, which "trading practice" allow the brokers to "margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level"?
The Antonio have the right to margin call at Shylock in any moment despite collateral level？

The debtor uses MPA to buy bts at 1.0 biteur/bts, so the holder wants to settlement the debtor at 0.1 biteur/bts in any moment despite collateral level?
So tell me why the debtors didn't have the right to settlement the MPA at any moment?

Every MPA holders must recognize there have risk of market liquidity(which is also a risk for the debtor), this is what they must bear, if they want to make the MPA is the price what they think, go to develop it and get a acceptance dealer for it. The debtor had made the enough collateral to ensure the value of MPA, other thing is not the business of debtor.

Not all MPA-holders may traders - they not must provide higher prices - they clients Bitshares DAC and must get nominal value if want go away from this platform.

If they want to go away from the platform，pay it for bts in the market, the debtor was protected by the MCR contract. The holders can't get a fair price of bts in the market, go to f**k the market liquidity, don't f**k the debtor.

The debtor has made the enough collateral to ensure the value of MPA, now the market didn't have enough liquidity to give the fair price of bts, so this is the fault of debtor?

1-side-way for open contracts.

This is not a 1-side-way open contracts, give the enough higher price in the market, then the market will give you what you want.
Don't want to have any lose？make a order and wait the bts price fall.
See, the MPA holders have the choice, they must pay for what they want.

这真TM算是币圈一景啊, 个个嘴上都喊着维护共识，心里却想的是镰刀，前有无限正义的珠玉cn-vote，我想后必有更加无限正义的***

真是个个都想回到“狡伪成风，吏民相沿，不以为非”的时候。

为改善 bitRUBLE 市场流动性，参数调整如下：

最少喂价人 5 人
爆仓费 1%
强清费 1%

请知悉。

这个只收强清费而不提高强清补偿对市场流动性没有任何改善，bitRUBLE抵押12人，产出1,078,898bitRUBLE，换算是93842.548人民币。

一个收筹码的人不会在乎2%甚至于4%的费用率，直接就可以把bitRUBLE区抵押清到只剩下一个人，即使是搬砖者到时候也会手里空有一把bitRUBLE，而在市场流动性不足的情况下，在挂单市场上也无法提供有足够吸引力的价格吸引其它流动性提供者进场提供足够平衡成本的bts，进而继续选择强清出金，恶性循环。

抵押者提供锚定资产的流动性，系统无法保证其在MCR之上抵押仓位的安全性，其提供的锚定资产流动性也就无法保证，不能保证锚定资产的流动性，自然不会有优势价格盘口差流动性的存在，进而导致这个市场上没有足够bts的流动性。

而且抵押出的锚定资产并不一定会在这个市场流通。

既然你们这么怕，为什么不直接把MCR调整到3以上？这样可以直接清到6左右。

一个费率1%+补偿1%的bitusd市场改变了覆灭的局面了吗？

我挺烦一个道理需要变着花样说来说去。

既然目的是追求锚定，就要抬升MCR降低杠杆。现在不降，如果价格继续下跌怎么办？再说了，上面那么高的抵押仓位，傻子才会现在进场给他们抬轿子。所以说，该疼不能怕。现在不动刀，将来更麻烦。
     暴仓单放出来的价格稍高于外盘，怎么会有人搬出去砸盘？大量准暴仓单现在就是悬在BTS头上的达摩丝之剑，这个雷不爆，BTS问题无解，拖久了，人气也没了，币也死了。
      目前喂价0.22，抵押率161%的状态的账户几乎已经归零了。猴子借款6719211.54BITCNY,抵押BTS49139334*0.1437（外盘价）=7061322*95%=6708265，已经是资不抵债了！
     对于这样的归零的账户，还不拍卖，在等什么呢？难道这就是A神心中的近似锚定？

风险最小化才是最优选择，再者也没有独立黑天鹅池。

喂价依然是锁定的喂价，内盘价格即使是高于外盘价格，抵押买依然是有利可图，不在于抵押率，只在于操作手法。

何况现在bitcny这个情况没有必要去追求锚定。

僵持僵持，有舍才有得。