Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community

[mindphlux]

There are several chinese people on the board, that's true. But I wouldn't say it's being controlled by them. There are at least 3 western members, including me.

Want more western members? Please vote for us or vote in other western people to have a more balanced view. It certainly helps.

[gamey]

Talking to a guy recently who is very knowledgable about crypto projects in general... he knew of my past interest in Bitshares and asked me if it is true ...   Is BitShares controlled by a small number of Chinese whales?

I told him I do not know, but such a thing could very well be true...

After reading this thread I really do wonder.

[cube]

The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.

I get your point and kind of agree with it but not for the reasons you provide.
You treat this situation as if a system flaw has been unexpectedly discovered and thus an emergency action was required.

Thanks for your appreciating of the point made.

Although the mechanism for the CNY price feed is outside the bts blockchain and developed separately by xeroc, it is considered an important and integral part of the Bitshares system. Getting external price feeds requires complex logics and codes in the script.  (I thank xeroc for his hard work, time and effort in getting the price feed script up and now putting up extra effort and time to fix the CNY-source feed problem.)

The price feed script does not take into consideration of CNY sources from China's sites and this causes the DEX's bts<->bitCNY settlement price to be lower than what the China centralised exchanges offer. Although this flaw has been there all along, it did not affect Transwiser because he did not have to sell his locked bts collaterals at below market price if he did not wish to (and he has maintained a healthy collaterals ratio to avoid margin calls). The situation changes when the GUI wallet start exposing this price-feed flaw to the public via a new 'Settle' button.  Any users can now force shorters (which include Transwiser) to sell their bts collaterals and buy their bitCNY at below the centralised exchanges' price, anytime and regardless of whether the shorters are willing or not to sell.  The smart exploiters saw an opportunity to make risk-free 'instant money' out of this price feed flaw and at the expense of the shorters and Transwiser.  In short, the price feed flaw is now exposed to the opportunistic exploiters by the new 'Settle' button. It created an artificial and unfair arbitrage opportunity for the flaw exploiters to gain free money.

This is my interpretation of the current situation: CNX delivered the 2.0 code but failed to deliver proper documentation and as a result businesses like Transwiser have been operating under false assumptions. Therefore it is justified to give those business some leeway to be able adjust to the newly discovered circumstances.

In the near future, when (hopefully) proper documentation is finally released, there will be no excuse to give any businesses a special treatment and bend the rules for them, even if they are the only ones supplying a given service. The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

Transwiser has raised other issues like being uninformed of the 'Settle' function implementation (Although it was discussed in the forum, there was no conclusion nor confirmation communicated) and shared his difficulties.  And you have rightly pointed out that poor documentation has played a part too.  Even though these plaguing issues are real and Transwiser is sufferring from them, they are not the main deciding factor in the proposal.  The main objective is to fix the Bitshares system flaw, stop the flaw exploiters and level the playing field.  Hopefully, the Committee's decisive action would take effect in time to stop any unfair damages to Transwiser and save Bitshares DAC from losing a valuable major business partner.

The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

Well said.

The proposal will help in restoring the rule consistency lost due to an unfortunate system flaw that is exposed by the new Settle function and it was happily exploited by the flaw exploiters.

[jakub]

The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.

I get your point and kind of agree with it but not for the reasons you provide.
You treat this situation as if a system flaw has been unexpectedly discovered and thus an emergency action was required.

This is my interpretation of the current situation: CNX delivered the 2.0 code but failed to deliver proper documentation and as a result businesses like transwiser have been operating under false assumptions. Therefore it is justified to give those business some leeway to be able adjust to the newly discovered circumstances.

In the near future, when (hopefully) proper documentation is finally released, there will be no excuse to give any businesses a special treatment and bend the rules for them, even if they are the only ones supplying a given service. The consistency of the rules is much more important than the fate of any single business in the ecosystem.

[cube]

I have yet to be voted in as a committee member... I'm getting a strong sense that there is more evangelizing the action, and less analysis...

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

... if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

All of these posed to me are loaded. They all assume suppositions that are clearly being questioned relating to the issue.

I am glad that you realise the above are loaded with unhelpful assumptions.  What makes you think that the proposal is 'more evangelizing the action, and less analysis'?  What makes you think that "every business that follows will expect the same"?  What makes you think that the Committee is not handling on a case-by-case basis with clear justification and that each future Committee proposal will not be backed by strong justification?  What makes you think that "the status of Bitshares reputation" would be affected " at that point"?

From where I sit, the correct response is for transwiser to make it's own executive decision to pause it's operations while it tries to figure out how to better position itself. If 'stopping the bleeding' is what is so critical here...

Do you think Transwiser being the first bitCNY to fiat onramp/offramp provider is so stupid as not to think of that?  Seriously? 
Transwiser fully believed in bitshares.  He has ALL his assets locked in bitshares because of the shorting requirements.  He has no realistic and immediate way of unlocking those trapped assets.  The committee can either stay as an observer and watch the bitshares flaw exploiters eat him up OR it can stop the flaw exploiters from taking advantage of the flaw and level the playing field.

I am not on the 'inside' of the whole thing, so I don't know the facts still on this matter.

Nothing fun about that when you are on the receiving end.

I am glad you realise that it is not fun to be on the receiving end.  So play nice and it will be reciprocated. You can ask objective questions in a polite way instead of putting up unhelpful assumptions and throwing baseless accusations.  I am sure you will get an answer from the Committee soon enough.

[sudo]

so long time passed   bitUSD  still not have a Acceptance dealer  like bitCNY

[btswildpig]

I think the most funny part in all of this is ..... why  even western people use BItCNY and not BitUSD ?

What's so special about BitCNY ??

There is the answer .

[38PTSWarrior]

I support the opinion of xeroc, bytemaster or pc.

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complain and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complains in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complains in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY fiasco
are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.

All of these questions posed to me are loaded. They all assume suppositions that are clearly being questioned relating to the issue.

It's like asking me: George Bush - Great President, or Greatest President?

This is a good example of the evangelizing methodology I was referring to that I think needs to be separated from analytic and consultative process.

I am not on the 'inside' of the whole thing, so I don't know the facts still on this matter.

From where I sit, the correct response is for transwiser to make it's own executive decision to pause it's operations while it tries to figure out how to better position itself. If 'stopping the bleeding' is what is so critical here... which is what has been used as the reasoning to justify the brash decision making.

Again though, so much of this fiasco has been cloaked in vested interests in all sides, it has made any rational analytics impossible for the community to validate the decision made, and has estranged the Committee Members in how they arrived at this decision.

It is easy to be an armchair critic.. it's also easy to devalue community opinions that differ from those not on the Committee by calling them armchair critics. Nothing fun about that when you are on the receiving end.

[dirnet]

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have, right now?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complaint and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complaints in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complaints in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY flaw/exploit fiasco are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats.  Every users and shareholders are losing confidence in Bitshares.  Bitshares's price and reputation continue to drop into oblivion.

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.

[sudo]

Actually , BitCNY holders can get a fair price anytime now at BTC38 .
I suspect BTC38 forget to update their English version page , the Chinese version page already says "it accepts no more than 50,000 BitCNY deposit every day directly turn into CNY balance on a 1:1 ratio  ."

It's a more fair price than what you would get in the DEX because the DEX would never give you 1:1 price considering you actually need to sell your BTS at a unfair spread to get the fiat value you need .

So maybe now you can understand how transwiser is providing a peg that merchants would actually use  , unlike the status with BitUSD .

Last time I check , no exchanges accepts BitUSD as deposit , most of them only provides a market place to trade with .

Thats good.  I'm glad to see it.  Does BTC38 also convert 1:1 CNY to bitCNY?  I bet not, and if they do, probably not for very long.

That should be profitable for BTC38 as bitCNY should always trade above par and they can make the difference.  Depending on the bitCNY=>BTS=>CNY conversion and liquidity as you mentioned.

I'd like to see some bitUSD=>USD 1:1 services , that's an easy trade for near guaranteed profits.  I've considered doing this myself on a very small scale but I don't want to mess with US regulation I don't fully understand. 

It would make more sense for an exchange to do it.  Perhaps we'll see this at CCEDK soon.

They sell all their BitCNY to transwiser 1:1  .

 

[cube]

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

Which part of the proposal you are not convinced? 

Is it fixing the price feed flaw which does not take CNY-price source from China websites?
Is it stopping the bitshares flaw exploiters?
Is it saving our major partner and the only CNY-fiat provider Transwiser from the flaw exploiters?  Should Bitshares let Transwiser die instead?

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

It is easy to become an armchair critic. Let's become one for the fun of it.

Statisic, no doubt, can help in the analysis of the proposal.  Can you please help the comittee count the following?

1) How many business partners do Bitshares have, right now?
2) How many Bitshares business partners dare to take the regulatory and financial risks and put in capital to provide for fiat onramp and offramp for bitasset tokens, right now?
3) How many Bitshares business partners are doing bitCNY<-> CNY fiat onramp and offramp specifically?

And let us consider the possible consequences if the committee is undecided about stopping the Bitshares flaw exploiters or decided to let the exploits happen:

1) Bitshares flaw exploiters gain from exploiting the price feed flaw and at the expense of Transwiser
2) These flaw exploiters continue to make risk-free monies.
3) Other non-exploiters come to know about it and they are tempted to try.  After all, where in the crypto world can you find risk-free money and easy exploit opportunities?
4) Other non-exploiters join in and become Bitshares flaw exploiters too
5) Transwiser lose substantial money and can no longer surive or Transwiser lose some money and lose interest in providing the bitCNY<-> CNY fiat service
6) Transwiser stops providing bitCNY to fiat onramp and offramp
7) The bitshares community thinks it is okie to let Transwiser die or cease his  bitCNY<-> CNY business
8 ) The community tries to find a Transwiser replacement but other business partners are too scared and/or not interested/not able to become a fiat gateway
9) bitUSD market gets to know about the massive flaw-exploits in bitCNY market and starts to become worried irrationally. Panick set in.
10) Some bitUSD and bitCNY users are losing monies.  They make a huge complaint and demand compensation in the bitshares forum
11) They are not satisfied, they spread their complaints in the bitcointalk forum
12) Users who cannot use the defunct CNY fiat gateway are unhappy and make their complaints in the forum too
13) Bitshares competitors know about the big scandal happening in Bithshares and take advantage of it.  They start trolling against bitshares
14) The public gets to know about the scandal too.  They may not know about Bitshares much but they start to believe Bitshares is a crap coin or a scam coin
15) Some weeks later another exploitable flaw is discovered in the referral codes say the vesting withdraw object, referrers start to lose money because of the flaw exploiters
16) Bitshares Committee likes to disable to vesting withdraw object to stop the exploiters but find their hands are tied because the users who lost big in the bitCNY flaw/exploit fiasco are strongly against it.
17) After setting a bad precedent with allowing the previous flaw exploiters to gain, Bitshares committee has to let the referrers suffer and/or die too
18) The dead referrers are upset and complain against bitshares in bitsharestalk and bitcointalk forums
19) Another opportunity for the bitshares competitors to troll against bitshares
20) The same vicious cycle repeats.  Every users and shareholders are losing confidence in Bitshares.  Bitshares's price and reputation continue to drop into oblivion.

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce..

Let's not stop at 5. 5 is not enough. The committee needs to think at least 10 steps ahead.   Despite the tough decisions, I think the committee has done just that.

[pc]

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce, instead of reacting with what is right in front of their noses.

I would indeed expect a lot more thinking (and possibly less action) from committee members than what we've seen here.

[mindphlux]

Well said, BunkerChain. I'd like to welcome you on the committee so please vote for BunkerChain Labs

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

Just for Shmits and giggles.. WWBD? (What would @bytemaster do)

I have yet to be voted in as a committee member... I'm getting a strong sense that there is more evangelizing the action, and less analysis... I have no idea what kind of consultation is being done or what advisors are being sought so they can work with some balanced data.

Thus far I am not convinced that taking a prescient action like this is a good idea.

It doesn't matter how big or small we are, if we bend the rules for one business, every business that follows will expect the same. Imagine what happens when we say no to them when we said yes to this? What do you think will be the status of Bitshares reputation at that point?

Every committee decision should be thinking 5 moves ahead with what result it will produce, instead of reacting with what is right in front of their noses.