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 - pc

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 99
91
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 08, 2018, 12:20:02 pm »
1. I don't think debt positions are "hurt" by forced settlement, because settlement happens at the fair price. (But that's an old argument.)

2. It should be possible to keep a balance using smartcoin parameters. E. g. with the settlement offset the debt position receives a reward for being settled.

92
Technical Support / Re: Can my coin pay dividend in form of BTS?
« on: October 05, 2018, 04:27:21 pm »
There is no built-in functionaliy for this, but it can be done client-side.

93
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 05, 2018, 03:01:11 pm »
For instance, according to Peter Conrad, the current situation may well
be achieved by using the actualy/fair price feed and a short squeeze
protection ratio of 0%.

Minor correction: I think that with MSSR=0 the fake price feed could be kept *closer* to the real price, not that the feed price would always have to represent the fair price exactly.

94
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 02, 2018, 12:34:56 pm »
Your logic is sound except for one point:
That said, if we want a fixed exchange rate, we need to "break" the promises somehow, or to limit capital movement somehow. This sounds unacceptable for some people, but unfortunately it's the fact.

You don't need to break promises. You don't need to continue making the same promises while you're actively breaking them.

The original design of our SmartCoins favours free capital movement and independent policy over fixed exchange rate.

You prefer fixed exchange rate over independent policy. Fine. You can have that without breaking any promises: create a new type of SmartCoins.

We can remember we were feeding around +15% offset on bitCNY price when the premium was around 3%.

So margin calls were settled at 15% offset? With 10% MSSR you have rewareded shorters with 5% for not providing sufficient collateral. Good job. BitShares was always about +5% right?

95
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: October 01, 2018, 09:02:51 pm »
Witnesses (like employees) are expected to do EVERYTHING right.

<fairy tale>
Alice and Bob are running a window cleaning business, and Charlie is their employee. Alice insists that windows must be cleaned with MagicClean(tm), while Bob insists that windows must be cleaned with WindowMagic(tm).

If Charlie uses MagicClean, Bob will fire him. If Charlie uses WindowMagic, Alice will fire him. What should he do?

Alice and Bob's customers don't care how their windows are cleaned, they're just interested in having clean windows. What should they do?

So the customers (and Charlie as well) go to Dave, who is also running a window cleaning business. Charlie, Dave and the customers live happily ever after, while Alice and Bob go broke.
</fairy tale>

If Alice and Bob were clever they'd sort out their differences among themselves, then tell Charlie about their decision. And NO, the BSIP-42 vote is not a decision, because obviously everyone is reading something else into it.

Stop brute-forcing decisions and find consensus!

96
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: October 01, 2018, 12:02:39 pm »
At this point, I decided to withdraw my support from witnesses to that feed BSIP42 to bitUSD. This will happen later this week so there is sufficient time for witnesses to
evaluate their individual situation.


I started to feed BSIP42 on BitUSD mostly because majority of witnesses started to do the same. Few hours ago in the witness chat Bitcrab told everyone that they will start removing votes for witnesses that do not support BSIP42 starting with spring-team, but in reality their votes do not much the BSIP42 BitUSD witnesses.

Guys, your fighting is endangering the stability of the blockchain! Keep in mind that the witness job is not only about the price feed.

Please acknowledge the fact that there are disagreements about BSIP-42 and do not vote out witnesses who have been providing reliable services just because they disagree with you.

97
General Discussion / Re: On The Importance of Bit.GOLD
« on: September 28, 2018, 11:09:48 am »
There are no shorts because both have black-swanned early this year. Interestingly, the markets seem to be ignoring this.

can you elaborate on what you mean by "the markets seem to be ignoring this"? is there a more efficient position the market can take on bit.GOLD currently?

http://cryptofresh.com/a/GOLD

Settlement price is 4,753 BTS/GOLD, that's the exact amount of available backing collateral per bitGOLD.
However, market price is around 10,000 BTS/bitGOLD with a significant spread (highest buy is offering more than 9,500 BTS).

The bitGold and bitSilver are not any longer backed by BTS or no longer need to be backed by BTS because of the black swan?
How was the black swan solved?

Each bitGOLD is backed by 4,753 BTS. The black swan was not resolved, it still persists.


The black swan comes when one collateral is under the ratio of one. Are they any thoughts how we can prevent the market from an individual?
Maybe we should set the min. call ratio to 2.0 for bitSilver, bitGold and bitBTC?

Changing MCR at this time will not help.

How can we increase the supply of bitGold and bitSilver without borrowing?

We can't. They need to be revived first, which is unlikely to happen before BTS price recovers to the level it had earlier this year.

98
General Discussion / Re: On The Importance of Bit.GOLD
« on: September 27, 2018, 12:21:25 pm »
There are no margin positions on bitGold or bitSilver now.

There are no shorts because both have black-swanned early this year. Interestingly, the markets seem to be ignoring this.

99
General Discussion / Re: Economic Abstraction and Network Fees
« on: September 23, 2018, 04:21:14 pm »

100
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Poll] BSIP42: adjust price feed dynamically
« on: September 23, 2018, 04:15:07 pm »
What I would propose is for

- transparency
- useability of the actual market reflecting pricefeeds

to have next to the  quote/base data per asset also a new variable, namely a 'premium' or 'modifier / premium / feedback'-float to be set per asset. This modifier/premium can then be set irregardless of the pricefeed publishing (or together, but ideally also seperate `publish_modifier`) and can be a 'median of medians' .

+1


101
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: September 18, 2018, 12:05:25 pm »
What was your voting for BSIP42 ?

He's currently voting FOR the proposal. http://cryptofresh.com/ballots

102
It is not possible to disable black swans.

This latest idea together with all the experiments and tweaking have taken bitCNY so far away from the original idea of BitShares' smartcoins that it would make sense to introduce a new kind of smartcoin tailored to your needs.

103
with BTS price going down, bitCNY are squeezed out, risk and capital cost of shorts increase. but demand change slowly than that, all these lead to higher premium and vice versa.

that's one problem of smartcoin, when premium go farer from 0 there's nothing to stimulate the premium to go toward 0, and that's why we now try the negative feed back price feeding, hope that can help.

Keep in mind that margin called short positions create automatic demand, and the amount of poorly collateralized bitCNY short positions is the biggest reason for the premium.

The whole theory of bitassets is based upon the premium. If bitXY trades with a premium there is an incentive for shorters to create (and sell) more bitXY, which brings the premium down. If bitXY trades below par there is an incentive for shorters to buy up cheap bitXY and close their positions. In both cases, the market price is driven towards par. Therefore it doesn't make sense to claim that nothing stimulates the premium - the premium exists to stimulate market participants.

104
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?
AFAIK you cannot powerdown until mid october, and the rate of powerdown is affected by the platform's inflation rate.

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.

105
Thanks.

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?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 99