BitAssets 3.0 - For Community Review

[starspirit]

There may well be good reason, but I am still trying to figure out how non-interest bearing cash is likely to fit into a broader bond market system.

For non-interest cash to find use in transactions, it would be important that it not get hoarded at fixed terms in the bond market to earn a yield. This hit me (*) in a recent discussion about 14% yields on roubles. Particularly when interest rates are high, I think this would require an interest-bearing at-call deposit market so that cash is able to move freely rather than be locked up. (*Till then I too thought that you might get away with just cash and term-based lending.)

One possible advantage of having cash in addition to at-call deposits could be that the at-call deposit market could be set up as block-chain based accounts that allow negative interest rates on the notional cash within it, when this is necessary in certain cycles to balance supply and demand. See The Zero Interest Bound Problem here...
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,15880.msg203780.html#msg203780
However, it may not be necessary to have a separate cash market to accommodate this – the cash units could be purely notional and only ever exist inside the accounts if there is some type of check-based system to move those notional credits. And allowing exchange above the feed price is an alternate market clearing solution to allowing negative interest rates. In other words, you could conceivable do away with cash and just have an at-call deposit market.

It is possible there are other reasons why users may choose at times to prefer to have a separate token for non-interest cash compared to just "interest bearing deposits". I feel these reasons need to be clear to justify the existence of a separate cash market. Possibilities might include increased privacy or anonymity, increased security/collateralization, or the ability to offer some cash-based services without the complication of dealing with interest payments on behalf of clients. Or I suppose we could just build both a cash and at-call deposit market and see how people use it, but as per my initial point, I don't think cash negates the need for an at-call market with interest.

Any thoughts?

[starspirit]

24 hour delay is to give shorts NOTICE so they can start topping off their collateral if they want to keep their position.
Shorts can always reduce their collateral after the settlement as long as it stays above maintenance.
Shorts can enter a market order to cover their entire position using their collateral at any time.

Bytemaster, this comment also confuses me. Why is there a need to give shorts notice to top up their collateral? Even if they know the timing, they are not going to know their queue position because everybody will top up their collateral just before settlement, so it depends on their willingness to hold versus others. In fact there is no reason to not place all one's spare BTS as collateral at that point in time. And then straight after, they will all be at liberty to take out all of their excess collateral again, so I'm not sure how this helps protect longs at all. If the timing were unknown however (e.g. instant, or randomised) then shorts would be competitively required to hold near the maximum they are comfortable with for as long as they hold the shorts. So instant seems better to me, at least on this basis.

I thought I understood the point raised by bitmeat and others earlier that maybe a delay helps mitigate market manipulation in the BTS market. But you don't seem to have said this is the reason at all.

Can you please clarify?

[jamesc]

Sorry if this has been covered, it has been a few days since I read all of this.  I just want to make sure this was brought up...

So my understanding is that a bitAsset holder can call a settlement at X% Y days in advanced.  That settlement executes at the price feed on expiration...Can this request be canceled?

My concern is that there should a only a short period of time where the settlement request can be canceled.  The main purpose is to avoid a lot of canceling in the last minutes when the price feed happens to be skewed in the undesired direction.  Given a known predictable settlement queue, shorts can plan better and decide what to do with there collateral or position.

[xeroc]

Sorry if this has been covered, it has been a few days since I read all of this.  I just want to make sure this was brought up...

So my understanding is that a bitAsset holder can call a settlement at X% Y days in advanced.  That settlement executes at the price feed on expiration...Can this request be canceled?

My concern is that there should a only a short period of time where the settlement request can be canceled.  The main purpose is to avoid a lot of canceling in the last minutes when the price feed happens to be skewed in the undesired direction.  Given a known predictable settlement queue, shorts can plan better and decide what to do with there collateral or position.

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=15986.0

[zerosum]

Sorry if this has been covered, it has been a few days since I read all of this.  I just want to make sure this was brought up...

So my understanding is that a bitAsset holder can call a settlement at X% Y days in advanced.  That settlement executes at the price feed on expiration...Can this request be canceled?

My concern is that there should a only a short period of time where the settlement request can be canceled.  The main purpose is to avoid a lot of canceling in the last minutes when the price feed happens to be skewed in the undesired direction.  Given a known predictable settlement queue, shorts can plan better and decide what to do with there collateral or position.

  Allowing people to enter/exit the line allows them to manipulate the market by sending fake signals.    The settlement line is meant as a LAST RESORT.  Its presence is only to guarantee USD holders a minimal level of liquidity at a fair price.  Everything else is set by the market.

[pgbit]

To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

[xeroc]

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

We don't know yet how they will be "coexisting" .. BM hasn't told us yet .. let's see

[pgbit]

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

We don't know yet how they will be "coexisting" .. BM hasn't told us yet .. let's see

For what its worth, my own view is that it very definitely should be the same, to enhance overall stability and trust in the network.

[Chronos]

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." 

[Ander]

To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

They need to be the same imo.  Just carry over from current system to new one when the hardfork occurs for bitassets 3.0.  If people don't want the new version they can sell beforehand.

[Agent86]

So its doing away with the concept of margin calls and replacing it with forced settlement.  Unlike a margin call, which is triggered whenever the spot price (feed price in this case) moves beyond collateral amt, a forced settlement needs to meet two conditions: 1) authorization by a long holder and 2) being an account with least collateralize amt.

Are there automatic margin calls in BitAssets 3.0?

It isn't mentioned in the description of BitAssets 3.0 nor could I find any post that clarifies it.  Is the above quote a correct interpretation?

[bytemaster]

So its doing away with the concept of margin calls and replacing it with forced settlement.  Unlike a margin call, which is triggered whenever the spot price (feed price in this case) moves beyond collateral amt, a forced settlement needs to meet two conditions: 1) authorization by a long holder and 2) being an account with least collateralize amt.

Are there automatic margin calls in BitAssets 3.0?

It isn't mentioned in the description of BitAssets 3.0 nor could I find any post that clarifies it.  Is the above quote a correct interpretation?

Yes low collateral results in margin calls automatically.

[NewMine]

To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

Are delegates supposed to publish feeds for the old assets? What if they refuse and nobody can unwind at market prices? Are we sure this has been thought through compketely?

[xeroc]

To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

Are delegates supposed to publish feeds for the old assets? What if they refuse and nobody can unwind at market prices? Are we sure this has been thought through compketely?

what happens with bitUSD that are unaccessable due to lost keys?

[bytemaster]

To clarify, BitAssets 3.0 might replace existing BitAssets eg BitGold with a new hard fork at some stage? Will BitAssets that currently exist be mapped straight into the 3.0 system?

from BM's friday comments on beyond bitcoin: BTA3.0 will coexist with the current system, but BM expects that the new system will be preferred. The old system will naturally wind down, and if it totally winds down it could be disabled with a hardfork.

Ohhhh. So existing BitGold is not the same as BitGold 3.0?

Are delegates supposed to publish feeds for the old assets? What if they refuse and nobody can unwind at market prices? Are we sure this has been thought through compketely?

what happens with bitUSD that are unaccessable due to lost keys?

Same thing that happens to BitUSD that are held by someone as savings for ever.  It requires someone to be short forever and will ultimately push up the price of BitUSD above $1 if there is no-one willing to short