Proposed market pegged asset overhaul

[Frodo]

If it turnes out to effectively eliminate yield I would be very upset that major changes like this aren't properly proposed and discussed beforehand. I understand that at certain points decisions have to be made in favour of long term success but we have to try our best not to turn this into a complete nightmare for investors.

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I think this is a bad and dangerous idea. Don't mess with our core product that we know works. The risk of breaking the market peg (and all the bad PR that will come with that even if we revert back) is not worth code simplicity.

 

[vlight]

I like this proposal, because:

less blockchain bloat with feed updates - faster wallet sync;
simpler, more free market like approach like with the initial system without price feed
more opportunities for traders to arbitrage price movements

However this will be less convenient to see the actual price as you probably will have to calculate it yourself. Also, not sure how much yield there will be if i want to just buy and hold for a year.

If this new system somehow will not work, we can always go back to current one... maybe

[arhag]

This proposed change deeply concerns me. I am not convinced this won't break the peg. Specifically, it seems there is no longer any guarantee that you can sell your BitUSD at the price feed within 30 days, since new shorts can always be created that undercut you. Not to mention it gets rid of the main source of yield for BitAssets.

Maybe someone can convince me otherwise, but I think this is a bad and dangerous idea. Don't mess with our core product that we know works. The risk of breaking the market peg (and all the bad PR that will come with that even if we revert back) is not worth code simplicity.

[Ander]

I need to look at this more, but this doesnt look like a major overhaul to me, it looks like a needed clarification of how things work that will make it a lot easier to use.

Will comment more later today.

[NewMine]

WTF?  Shouldn't this be done on a new chain share dropping at a snapshot or some shit. This is going to kill BTS with a major change like this.

It's not really that big of a change, bitassets will still be the same before and after, but markets will be more flexible and have higher liquidity since there will no longer be restrictions on short selling at the feed.

Yield might still stay due to the income from market fees, though I think ultimately all fees have to go to BTS to keep the system long term sustainable. One of the issues with yield is that in the current system if there are no active short orders competing on interest then any person with BTS can short to himself and then harvest the yield for free, ensuring that yield will always be kept low. So the entire concept of yield might not really be feasible anyway.

Getting rid of yield and actual market creation of assets is a huge difference. To create bitUSD, there doesn't have to be anyone to buy it in the new version by the way it is proposed.

[graffenwalder]

so if you wanted to short, you now have to sell your bitasset first, before a profit can be made?

Yep, you can sell the bitasset that you have issued, Then you're going to owe that bitasset to the blockchain and will be forced to buy it back at the feed price within 30 days, so if the price of BTS has increased over the 30 days you will have made a profit.

How are we going to sell this feature to traders who want to use our platform?

[Rune]

so if you wanted to short, you now have to sell your bitasset first, before a profit can be made?

Yep, you can sell the bitasset that you have issued, Then you're going to owe that bitasset to the blockchain and will be forced to buy it back at the feed price within 30 days, so if the price of BTS has increased over the 30 days you will have made a profit.

[graffenwalder]

so if you wanted to short, you now have to sell your bitasset first, before a profit can be made?

[Chronos]

Interesting. This seems like a good change, but it certainly is a major one. When is 0.8.0 expected to be released?

[Rune]

WTF?  Shouldn't this be done on a new chain share dropping at a snapshot or some shit. This is going to kill BTS with a major change like this.

It's not really that big of a change, bitassets will still be the same before and after, but markets will be more flexible and have higher liquidity since there will no longer be restrictions on short selling at the feed.

Yield might still stay due to the income from market fees, though I think ultimately all fees have to go to BTS to keep the system long term sustainable. One of the issues with yield is that in the current system if there are no active short orders competing on interest then any person with BTS can short to himself and then harvest the yield for free, ensuring that yield will always be kept low. So the entire concept of yield might not really be feasible anyway.

[xeroc]

So we lose one of our killer features: yield. .. thats very ... unfortunate

[fluxer555]

I believe this is still in suggestion phase. I think your claims are too strong without more developer input.

I doubt it is part of suggestion phase. It is part of dvs/0.8.0 milestone.

What's nice about DevShares is that it could be implemented into DevShares as a test, and only moved to BTS if it is in fact better. Given that this is significantly easier to implement, it is worth the time to try it.

[fluxer555]

WTF?  Shouldn't this be done on a new chain share dropping at a snapshot or some shit. This is going to kill BTS with a major change like this.

I'm assuming this is going to be implemented in DVS first. This has been standard procedure for all of the latest releases in the past few months.

[cube]

I believe this is still in suggestion phase. I think your claims are too strong without more developer input.

I doubt it is part of suggestion phase. It is part of dvs/0.8.0 milestone.

[Rune]

I believe this is still in suggestion phase. I think your claims are too strong without more developer input.

Could be, I don't know how the chain of command actually works. I just assumed that if an issue was opened this way by bytemaster it's basically what is planned to be done. Theoretical made a document that describes some of the issues with the current market engine: https://github.com/theoreticalbts/bitshares/blob/market_refactor/docs/market-engine-0.8.0.md

I like this proposed change so i think its a good idea to get it implemented. It's less complex so it might help with getting a useable product out sooner.