Author Topic: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community  (Read 29501 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.

Why don't we enable it for bitCNY and disable it for bitUSD to learn?   :P  Right now the only way to test forced settlement is with bitCNY because there are more buyers than sellers in the bitCNY market.  It couldn't even be tested here because there aren't enough bitUSD buyers. 
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1923
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
@bitcrab I've asked about Privatized bitAssets and would have done it to create a design that 1)removed forced settlement and 2) relied more on  the feed price (or setting SQP to 1000).. this was a couple months ago.  However I realized that would expose us to more regulatory risk because we would have control instead of the committee.  We would be acting as custodians and that would require millions in compliance.  I think privatized bitAssets are better for bigger institutions. 

Another option I thought about is to create another public bitCNY, called let's say bitCNY-with-a-better-design-and-liquidity,   via worker proposal and under committee control.  That way we can test out two different designs ... I think the original will die off, but we probably need to find a way to bridge between the two and subsidize transfer differences.

actually I prefer to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and committee can decide to which asset the feature will apply, then for example we can enable this feature for BitUSD and disable it for BitCNY,  by doing so we can also compare the behavior of these 2 MPAs to analyse what force settlement bring to the market and decide further.

if this is not possible, seems I'd best to issue a privatized smartcoin, although a privatized smartcoin may be not easily accepted by the ecosystem.
Email´╝Übitcrab@qq.com

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado

Which leads to the question whether we build bitshares around  business or businesses around bitshares

Obviously businesses are built around BitShares, however that's only theoretical. In practice as we can see now, since we are... underdeveloped, we need to be flexible for the first businesses that use BitShares, otherwise we won't take off. Later on when we're big enough and self sustainable, we might do that.


But even then we might face the same problem countries face now, what if a business is just too big to be ignored? Then stuff like banks bail outs will happen. Of course this should all be under the community's voting decisions so it only happens if we want, but still I guess we should keep an open mind.

I've always been adept of the fact business should adapt to BitShares, they definitely should but at this point in time if we can show some flexibility that will pay off in the future I'm all for it, we are still too young. If this includes loosing the few support we have left from the Chinese, things will even get worse.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads


Offline fav

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav

I have spent hours in the internal committee discussion coming up with a compromise that could be presented to the community. Personally I'm against this, but I also see the need to temporarily stop the bleeding while the presented modifications can be made so it cannot be exploited any longer - even though force settlement was designed like this and it's very important that we have a price floor. As long as there are buy orders above the price feed, there's no incentive to use the settlement function, and this is the general sentiment of the compromise:

Stop the bleeding while a bot can be written written that provides liquidity above the price feed so there's no incentive to use the settlement function under normal circumstances. Also adjust the CNY pricefeeds by including more chinese exchanges so the gap is tighter.

There are some people doing arbitrage on purpose, and there's one company loosing money because of this. This is hurting us as a whole.

Again - please join us in the committee, I think your opinions and knowledge would be great in the future.

Arbitrage is a healthy function of every market.  Nothing should be done to discourage or prevent it. 

Breaking the chain that's causing the bleed is simple to do.  The service that's bleeding simply needs to "turn off" and correct their business plan.  Which it sounds like this has already been done.  No further action from bitshares is required.

The issues we're discussing have little to nothing to do with bitshares not functioning properly, it is wholely because of an outside service not accounting for existing features. 

I don't believe the settlement feature has amounted to any appreciable losses.  They are insignificant as far as I can tell.  And again it is not because of the settlement that there are losses, if any.  The responsibility rest completely on the outside service provider understanding the market they are using and supporting. 

Shutting down features and services to satisfy outside mismanagement is a terrible precedent to set.

Which leads to the question whether we build bitshares around  business or businesses around bitshares

Offline merivercap

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

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

If you really are going to act in best interest of shareholders, you should form your own opinions on the matter. There have been good and bad arguments and you should only count the good ones and base your decision on them.

@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

I don't mean to insult you if you are actually analyzing the information.  It would be a great insult to everyone involved here if you see your job as simply counting opinions, or making decisions base on popularity.  That is the insult.  A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.

I agree that committee members have discretion and should evaluate decisions based on their judgement of merit.  I encourage mindphlux to continue to refine the decision making process.  However I think what mindphlux did by evaluating the opinions of those that actually had the desire to post on this thread is fine as a fall back option and it's not like he polled the entire community.   It's sometimes better to admit we're not experts especially on complicated subjects and find other ways to make decisions. 

We have to be careful of thinking any of us are experts and that this current design is somehow sacrosanct.  We're conducting an experiment and we should be mindful of people who are actually using the system and proactively inform people of the rules, risks and any major GUI feature updates even if a feature was always in the CLI and 'people should know about it'....   I probably know more about the system than most and I'm building a business on the platform and I don't even want to trade on it right now.  Are you guys trading on it?  If there's so few who even understand the system and so few opinions on the matter, what makes you all so confident that it's that robust? 

I do agree in the long run we cannot be too rash with decision making because there needs to be time for people to weigh in and have discussions.  Hence I think it's appropriate that the OP requested a temporary disablement of the feature.  Also at this time frankly with such a small group of people interested and using the platform we should give more benefit of the doubt and defer to bitcrab/Transwiser who are the ones that are actually using the features to run a real business.   

BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)

Xeldal

  • Guest

I have spent hours in the internal committee discussion coming up with a compromise that could be presented to the community. Personally I'm against this, but I also see the need to temporarily stop the bleeding while the presented modifications can be made so it cannot be exploited any longer - even though force settlement was designed like this and it's very important that we have a price floor. As long as there are buy orders above the price feed, there's no incentive to use the settlement function, and this is the general sentiment of the compromise:

Stop the bleeding while a bot can be written written that provides liquidity above the price feed so there's no incentive to use the settlement function under normal circumstances. Also adjust the CNY pricefeeds by including more chinese exchanges so the gap is tighter.

There are some people doing arbitrage on purpose, and there's one company loosing money because of this. This is hurting us as a whole.

Again - please join us in the committee, I think your opinions and knowledge would be great in the future.

Arbitrage is a healthy function of every market.  Nothing should be done to discourage or prevent it. 

Breaking the chain that's causing the bleed is simple to do.  The service that's bleeding simply needs to "turn off" and correct their business plan.  Which it sounds like this has already been done.  No further action from bitshares is required.

The issues we're discussing have little to nothing to do with bitshares not functioning properly, it is wholely because of an outside service not accounting for existing features. 

I don't believe the settlement feature has amounted to any appreciable losses.  They are insignificant as far as I can tell.  And again it is not because of the settlement that there are losses, if any.  The responsibility rest completely on the outside service provider understanding the market they are using and supporting. 

Shutting down features and services to satisfy outside mismanagement is a terrible precedent to set. 


Offline mindphlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

I don't mean to insult you if you are actually analyzing the information.  It would be a great insult to everyone involved here if you see your job as simply counting opinions, or making decisions base on popularity.  That is the insult.  A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.

I have spent hours in the internal committee discussion coming up with a compromise that could be presented to the community. Personally I'm against this, but I also see the need to temporarily stop the bleeding while the presented modifications can be made so it cannot be exploited any longer - even though force settlement was designed like this and it's very important that we have a price floor. As long as there are buy orders above the price feed, there's no incentive to use the settlement function, and this is the general sentiment of the compromise:

Stop the bleeding while a bot can be written written that provides liquidity above the price feed so there's no incentive to use the settlement function under normal circumstances. Also adjust the CNY pricefeeds by including more chinese exchanges so the gap is tighter.

There are some people doing arbitrage on purpose, and there's one company loosing money because of this. This is hurting us as a whole.

Again - please join us in the committee, I think your opinions and knowledge would be great in the future.
Please consider voting for my witness mindphlux.witness and my committee user mindphlux. I will not vote for changes that affect witness pay.

Xeldal

  • Guest
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

I don't mean to insult you if you are actually analyzing the information.  It would be a great insult to everyone involved here if you see your job as simply counting opinions, or making decisions base on popularity.  That is the insult.  A committee members job is not to give the people what they vote for or what they want.  A committee member is elected for their knowledge of the system, their principles, their ability to discern complex topics and make informed rational decisions.  A committee member must be willing to make tough and *unpopular decisions because it is the RIGHT thing to do, not because, "that's what the people want".  Popular opinion will almost *always be the wrong thing to do.  Most people do not have a clue about economics, markets, trading, business, public psychology etc.  If you go with the popular vote we will be lost and bankrupt in no time.

Offline Samupaha

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 479
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: samupaha
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

If you really are going to act in best interest of shareholders, you should form your own opinions on the matter. There have been good and bad arguments and you should only count the good ones and base your decision on them.

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.

@Xeldal

I would vote for you, and I am sure that many others would too.

Please consider to propose yourself as a committee member and in this way help, whit your knowledge, the whole community.
(The committee members are part of the community ofc, so to help the community you should help us in making discussions and decisions with your POV)
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 07:54:29 pm by Bhuz »

Offline mindphlux

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 232
    • View Profile
@Xeldal

I would appreciate it if you would stop insulting me, it is inappropriate. I am trying to stay neutral to this topic.

I was elected by the shareholders and I'm supposed to act in their best interest, that is why this thread was created. Not many people commented, but the majority of the people that commented here were in favor of the compromise presented here.

Why don't you campaign to be a committee member so we can have you as a critical voice in our internal discussions? Seriously, please do it, I'd like to have you there.
Please consider voting for my witness mindphlux.witness and my committee user mindphlux. I will not vote for changes that affect witness pay.

Xeldal

  • Guest
@Xeldal

You actually showed the feed several hours after the committee was informed of the situation.

Your post is from yesterday at 20:00 ish UTC
The committee was informed and checked the feed on 8/9 am of the same day.

At that time the feed was 0.204 while in yunbi there was a price of 0.210, +3%
Correct, though this does not support your argument.  The 3% figure was immediately after a 3% - 5% move in the price of BTS.  It takes at least an hour for every witness to report their version of the price.  Short term discrepancies in the price like this are not an issue.  It takes 24 hours for settlement which is plenty of time for witnesses to report accurate numbers.

Dear community,

I have reviewed this thread to come up with a decision whether to vote for proposal 1.10.18 or not. I have counted

Code: [Select]
JohnnyBitcoin - reject
clayop - support
Xeldal - reject
clout - support
tonyk - reject
bitcrab - support
btswildpig - support
Empirical1.2 - support
merivercap - support
sudo - support
wallace - support
pc - reject

4 reject, 8 support

I have voted for this proposal.

Best regards
mindphlux

Lol, correct me if I'm wrong but it seems that what you're saying is you know how to count.  That the details are not important so long as more people express 1 opinion vs another.   

What a great representative we have here, a mind we can count on to critically evaluate the information.  /s

I apologize if your analysis went further than simple addition, but it was not expressed if it did. 

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
@Xeldal

You actually showed the feed several hours after the committee was informed of the situation.

Your post is from yesterday at 20:00 ish UTC
The committee was informed and checked the feed on 8/9 am of the same day.

At that time the feed was 0.204 while in yunbi there was a price of 0.210, +3%

Offline merivercap

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 661
    • View Profile
    • BitCash
Dear community,

I have reviewed this thread to come up with a decision whether to vote for proposal 1.10.18 or not. I have counted

Code: [Select]
JohnnyBitcoin - reject
clayop - support
Xeldal - reject
clout - support
tonyk - reject
bitcrab - support
btswildpig - support
Empirical1.2 - support
merivercap - support
sudo - support
wallace - support
pc - reject

4 reject, 8 support

I have voted for this proposal.

Best regards
mindphlux

Thanks @mindphlux !
BitCash - http://www.bitcash.org 
Beta: bitCash Wallet / p2p Gateway: (https://m.bitcash.org)
Beta: bitCash Trade (https://trade.bitcash.org)