Author Topic: my plan to adjust SQP  (Read 9343 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Xeldal

  • Guest

I didn't know SQP was going to be removed; but I did know that margin calls will only be triggered if the feed crosses your margin call limit:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/436
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/compare/436-fork-feed-protect


You're correct.  That's what I understood as well.  Similar to how it used to work.  We never called it SQP before this current set of rules, so I guess that's why I mistakenly say its going away.   :)

Offline maqifrnswa

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile

Benefit: Margin calls should be avoided unless absolutely necessary since it takes smartcoins out of circulation when the market is too thin to begin with. The most accurate/liquid market should be used to establish when a market call occurs, and at this moment the feed is a best. Feed is 100% SQP.


If you want to avoid margin calls, why not just reduce the margin call limit?  Instead of triggering at 175% collateralization, trigger at 150% or lower.

Its my understanding that SQP is on its way out, so perhaps we shouldn't be designing around it.  But in any event I think this SQP limit should not be reduced to 1000.  If smartcoins are designed to trade at a premium,  selling the smartcoin at the feed is the worst deal you should ever expect to get.  Margin call orders, as they approach <100% collateralization are the most urgently needed to fill.   You don't put the most urgent need at the least desirable price.  It may never get filled. 

I'd suggested elsewhere having margin call only trigger if the feed crosses your limit. Like BTS-0.9  Only then would it reach out and try to fill the order, but it's restricted by a limit, again like BTS-0.9  ;  As the feed moves beyond your margin call limit, the urgency to fill the order is greater.  The limit could start at 0% of the feed once triggered, and slowly extend out, up to 10% or more as it approaches black swan <100% collateralization.

I deleted my post after thinking a bit more, sorry for the noise. (I was hoping it would be deleted before anyone saw it!)

I agree with you that SQP shouldn't be used to avoid margin calls. It also shouldn't be 100% for the reason you give: those calls urgently need to be filled, and they won't at 100% SQP.

I didn't know SQP was going to be removed; but I did know that margin calls will only be triggered if the feed crosses your margin call limit:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/issues/436
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene/compare/436-fork-feed-protect

Even with this change you probably need some SQP to protect shorts and prevent margin calls from accidentally triggering a blackswan in a thin market.

Given that margin calls will only be triggered if the feed crosses your margin limit:
--In a normal market where bid/ask is within 10% of the feed (see current bitUSD:BTS), SQP doesn't really do much except protect shorts from being "ripped off." Shorts see this as a penalty, but the bitUSD has to come from somewhere and SQP limits how big the penalty will be. In a liquid market, you shouldn't even need SQP as there should be enough for sale at market rates. SQP can't be 0, because they have to be cleared from somewhere otherwise margin calls and collateral are meaningless.

--In a broken market where bid/ask is greater than 10% from the feed (see current bitBTC:BTS), SQP creates an invisible buy wall that slows the market from converging to the peg. Someone's going to have to bite the bullet and short to clear out all the margin calls, otherwise price will linger at feed+10%.

SQP also helps me price risk - if the biggest penalty I can pay is 10%, I know that anything I short greater than 10% should be immune to risk associated with bitASSET:ASSET spread.
maintains an Ubuntu PPA: https://launchpad.net/~showard314/+archive/ubuntu/bitshares [15% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval maqifrnswa true [50% delegate] wallet_account_set_approval delegate1.maqifrnswa true

Xeldal

  • Guest

Benefit: Margin calls should be avoided unless absolutely necessary since it takes smartcoins out of circulation when the market is too thin to begin with. The most accurate/liquid market should be used to establish when a market call occurs, and at this moment the feed is a best. Feed is 100% SQP.


If you want to avoid margin calls, why not just reduce the margin call limit?  Instead of triggering at 175% collateralization, trigger at 150% or lower.

Its my understanding that SQP is on its way out, so perhaps we shouldn't be designing around it.  But in any event I think this SQP limit should not be reduced to 1000.  If smartcoins are designed to trade at a premium,  selling the smartcoin at the feed is the worst deal you should ever expect to get.  Margin call orders, as they approach <100% collateralization are the most urgently needed to fill.   You don't put the most urgent need at the least desirable price.  It may never get filled. 

I'd suggested elsewhere having margin call only trigger if the feed crosses your limit. Like BTS-0.9  Only then would it reach out and try to fill the order, but it's restricted by a limit, again like BTS-0.9  ;  As the feed moves beyond your margin call limit, the urgency to fill the order is greater.  The limit could start at 0% of the feed once triggered, and slowly extend out, up to 10% or more as it approaches black swan <100% collateralization. 

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
He asked a valid question .. getting personal is not helpful
Please don't dig a tomb (don't reply to a too old post)   :P
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?

I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin.  He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.   

I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]

Zero!


PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever  speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?

may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to  face.
No this not a math problem, it is a simple question - How much were the exact losses of transwise before they lied to the committee members, claiming huge losses so they can change the system to their liking?
I don't know if you are really stupid or pretend to be stupid.
He asked a valid question .. getting personal is not helpful

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?

I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin.  He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.   

I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]

Zero!


PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever  speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?

may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to  face.
No this not a math problem, it is a simple question - How much were the exact losses of transwise before they lied to the committee members, claiming huge losses so they can change the system to their liking?
I don't know if you are really stupid or pretend to be stupid.

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4664
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
you still think it as a math problem. the problem is you never can give a fair price for Bts, and change others Bts with this price.
you can give a price at a moment, but the price always change, so nobody can accept the rule: you can buy all of my Bts at any time you want

settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?

In this case transwiser got 100.2 CNY in fiat, and he paid out 5000 BTS, and the borrowed 100 bitCNY is returned to the system. How much loss or profit do you think it is?
Although I don't think current design is better than which of 0.9, but "borrowed things should have some ways to be forced returned".

//Edit:
True he has lost much if the short position is created when price of bts was much higher. But if he buy bts with the 100 CNY in fiat from external exchange, the actual lost would be not too much.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 03:35:34 pm by abit »
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?

I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin.  He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.   

I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]

Zero!


PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever  speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?

may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to  face.
No this not a math problem, it is a simple question - How much were the exact losses of transwise before they lied to the committee members, claiming huge losses so they can change the system to their liking?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
you still think it as a math problem. the problem is you never can give a fair price for Bts, and change others Bts with this price.
you can give a price at a moment, but the price always change, so nobody can accept the rule: you can buy all of my Bts at any time you want

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1530
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano

I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?   

That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.


Why all markets?  Am I missing something?  Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not?  I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works.  The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?

Erm. I *think* black swans are based on the price feed, not the internal market price. I'm not sure either, but if margin calls happen due to the price feed it seems logical to assume that the collateral ratio of short positions is always compared to the price feed.

for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?

In that case the loss is due to the price change, not due to forced settlement.
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?

I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin.  He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.   

I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]

Zero!


PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever  speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
settlement's loss is zero? the loss is very complex, not a simple math question.
for example, transwiser borrow 100bitCNY, sell it to others for 100.2 CNY.
then somebody ask force settle at price 0.02CNY/BTS, transwiser get 100bitCNY, lost 5000 BTS.
how many loss or profit do you think it is?

may I ask you if you agree I can sell or buy all your BTS at latest market price anytime?
if you don't agree, the shorter's also don't want to accept this rule, so nobody will short if they all know what situation they have to  face.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 05:39:00 am by alt »

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?

I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin.  He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.   

I have not used the forced settlement but I can give an exact number on their losses [due to the settlement]

Zero!


PS
Now, there is only one person that knows about exactly who made what and how much in the whole settlement fiasco, but it is not me. For that info you should ask scotter.
I do not know if he will ever  speak, but I will be all ears if he does.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2015, 12:19:06 am by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?

I don't know what the exact amount is, but ask JohnnyBitcoin.  He was one of the ones using the force settlement so he can probably give you an estimate.   
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
Quote
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?...
How exactly did they lose more than 20 BTS?
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash

I fully understand it's for those with 'insufficient' collateral, but did you understand my post about walking the book down in an illiquid market and why it's more likely to prevent a black swan than cause it?   

That's essentially impossible IMO, because you'd have to walk the book down in *all* markets to generate a significant impact on the price feed, and if you're that powerful the market is in your hands anyway.


Why all markets?  Am I missing something?  Black swans are based on internal market trading, not the price feed, is it not?  I'll admit I'm wrong if I'm misunderstanding how this market works.  The price feed is only used for the SQP [aka BSP (black swan protection)] is it not?

[In the equation: SWAN = DEBT/COLLATERAL
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,19102.0.html

Both DEBT & COLLATERAL are based on internal market prices correct?]

I checked the market depth on the openledger books and a 430,000 BTS sell order ($1290) gets the market down from .003 USD/BTS to .002 USD/BTS.. if my math is right it only takes $1,290 to bring the internal markets down 33%?  And there is no support after that so it will go to zero USD/BTS if no one else comes in the very second a big sell order is placed.

I'm actually hoping I'm missing something, because I'm doing this analysis on the fly and the more I find out the more problems I see with this illiquidity....

IDK, shouldn't you have found this first before having strong opinions in the other thread? ...to say nothing about this one.

I have an opinion and I'm asking mainly rhetorically, but I hold out that I could be wrong and if so sometimes it's easier for someone to point it out.
yes you are wrong - as in "it is not up to you to decide who is running a real business". And I might be wrong but real businesses do not complain for losing 20 BTS.

Who's lost 20 BTS, who is complaining, and what does this have to do with this thread on SQP?   I think Transwiser is running a real CNY gateway business and I'm sure people there lost a lot more than 20BTS.  Who said it was ever my decision to decide what is a real business?... I have my own definition of what a real business is and it's probably more in line with what others think... didn't mean to offend anyone, but hey if someone is a full time trader I'd include them too in my definition,  but I doubt there are many here...most are probably part-time speculators ...
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)