。。。。。。。。。

有些机制没有修正之前，这种OMO就是自取....

现在谁在修正，责任就在谁。

当社区投票结果出来之后, 见证人却依然可以按照自己的逻辑继续搞一套而无视社区的投票结果。。。。

不守规则者无需承担任何后果与责任....

这种低投票效率的情况下，你们有几成把握维护投票的尊严？

那么以后会不会越来越烂下去？还是继续装聋作哑混天敲钟？

这种回购提案的回收方式是否应该改为强清更为合适？

本质上并非在于回购数量的多少，而在于回购锁仓带给市场的通缩预期效应。

既然是这样明显 强清的优势要远远大于市场挂买单：

1.强清给市场带来的活跃性更强
强清的价格是 喂价×（1+强清补偿），排名靠前的才会有机会被强清到，这样想被强清获利的抵押者会不断调整自己的抵押率及从市场购买足够的抵押筹码来保证自己在强清的范围之内。

2.强清给市场带来更高的价格预期
挂单是一个死价格，表示这个价格将来可能会回落的这个价格，市场的预期消极；
而强清价格跟随喂价，且高于喂价，市场的预期相对积极；

3.强清在市场有大量爆仓单积压时，可以消化爆仓压力，缓解潜在的危机；挂单无此功能

4.强清没有必要再去考虑市场挂单这么一个价格问题，争议更少。

诸位以为如何？

？？？？！！！！

       去掉爆仓是可以的，只留强清，如果这样的话可以把强清补偿调小一点。对盘面的压制会少很多。但是更本的还是要促进bitcny的需求，bts已经和bitcny绑在一起了。
       具体讲就是把mssr调成0.98，采用阶梯强清补偿，抵押率低于1.6的调成0.5％，依次往上叠加，最高加到2％，延迟改短一点。

 Reduce MCR of bitUSD to 1.5 can't save it，only the big holder of bitusd can save it.

“Fairness comes from the stakeholders ability to vote/unvote witnesses based on their perceived feeding performance.”

This is a very wrong thought，“Fairness” come from the rule，then the stakeholder can judge which wittness didn't follow the rule.

The bitusd had destroyed by the GS, NOW the committee want to destroy the bitcny with settlement, excellent, just do want you want to do.

 I see, NO ONE in the committee know the market.

 That' all, end.

Quote from: binggo on July 15, 2019, 09:16:18 am

I didn't find andy evidence to prove we have a “Much better feeding”, settled volume can't prove it, as the offset is 2%.

I didn't find any rule of the feed price，the feed price still control by the witness, and i found we didn't have any method to deal with the witness like “verbaltech2” and the GS Protection.

Quote from: clockwork on July 15, 2019, 08:45:05 am

Quote from: binggo on July 15, 2019, 08:31:21 am

So， did we have a stable measure to solve this kind problem?

Quote from: clockwork on July 15, 2019, 08:26:08 am

Quote from: binggo on July 15, 2019, 06:59:37 am

You have support the: https://cryptofresh.com/p/1.10.38714

Give the reason!!!

I never agreed with raising the settlement offset in the first place and always thought all bitAssets should have the same one.

5% was supposed to only be a temporary measure in the first place.

Much better feeding....We've had wild swings on CEXs that did not affect the feed price like the case used to be which led to manipulation and abuse of the settlement mechanism.

A good proof of that is the fact that only 170 000 bitCNY has been settled over the last 6 months....That's a grand total of less than 25k USD over SIX months.

If you think this makes any real difference in the market, you're looking at the wrong place.

If you don't think we have better feeding then you probably don't remember what was happening due to odd CMC , poloniex etc prices back when the offset was changed to 5%

I heard the same argument about settled volume not proving anything when we went from 5% to 2% as well... But nothing changed.

There are not supposed to be any rules and the price IS supposed to be chosen by the witnesses themselves. Fairness comes from the stakeholders ability to vote/unvote witnesses based on their perceived feeding performance.

anything else is more centralized and completely defeats the purpose of having the witness fed system in place