Author Topic: Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community  (Read 25454 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .

I understand the difficulty many people have had with all the changes.  I am one of those who has felt the severe pain of not being clear on something or not knowing some detail even exists, and I spend an extraordinary amount of time here.  I can't imagine if I were to try and keep up in a different language.  I would have given up a long time ago.   I am very frustrated with the ever new mechanics and dysfunctional history that you've described, that we've shared.   

I say 'thorough' only to distinguish that a lot was said and it was not a surprise.  It was by no mean comprehensive.  Perhaps a poor choice of words.

Working with what we have and attempting to build something that's never been done before, I feel we havn't done so bad.  You are right though.  Most involved here are not financial professionals, are not experts in exchange/market theory, and we are learning as we go and hopefully attracting those who are; I think from my perspective we are mostly losing intellectual capital, unfortunately.  I havn't seen many of those whom I considered great analytical minds around here for a long time, including yourself.  I'm hoping that these talents are still out there engaged but silent or busy. IDK

I think the market mechanics still need a lot care and examination.  I don't claim to know what the answers are. 

 

Well I hear at least the SQP was discussed today on mumble (place where words fly and  no one have time to think or analyze ) and with vast majority was approved as the next best thing after TITAN.[ Putting it here in writing is not possible, of course, because someone might see through its utter ridiculousness.

And while I might not be the great analytical mind you crave more of, I do intend to stop participating in the discussions here. Discussion consisting  mostly of "BM's next square wheel invention"... after he kindly asked to leave, leave him alone only with his obedient followers who do not think for themselves, analyze or criticize. [link*]



* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20194.msg260153.html#msg260153

Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Xeldal

  • Guest
Everything we do to hurt the stake holders and speculators to please the so-called "real user demand" was based on a white dream  . What kind of real users will use a system that haven't proven itself "too big to fail" like Bitcoin ? At this very early stage , stake holders and speculators are really taking out their money to pay for this eco-system , not the imaginary real user that will never come in the short term or long term (really , ask you aunt , your uncle , to use this system , see how they would react . Yeah ...I tried that one .  )

Yes, I've tried the same.  It wasn't pleasant.

What do you think we need right now?  Surely you do not believe that settlement or SQP is the primary cause of the lack of users.  I don't think settlement has hurt anyone; if it has it is arbitrarily small.  I think the worries regarding it are overblown personally and should be fairly easily manageable.  You just have to know about them.

I don't think smartcoins are going to work until a market is built up around it.  And it may still need a lot of changes.  I think they are complicated and difficult to explain.; The fact that they are designed to trade above parity is foreign and unnatural.  But a lot of this need not be visible to a merchant or average user.  The tools on top of smartcoins might be where we get simplicity.  They will just work, and you don't need to worry about how. 

For now, I think UIAs is where the action should be.  A very reputable UIA is nearly as good as a smartcoin, and is free of all the complications and constraints. 

What happened to the private MPA3.0s that were supposed to make MPA1.0 obsolete?   I don't even remember how they were supposed to work.


Xeldal

  • Guest
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .

I understand the difficulty many people have had with all the changes.  I am one of those who has felt the severe pain of not being clear on something or not knowing some detail even exists, and I spend an extraordinary amount of time here.  I can't imagine if I were to try and keep up in a different language.  I would have given up a long time ago.   I am very frustrated with the ever new mechanics and dysfunctional history that you've described, that we've shared.   

I say 'thorough' only to distinguish that a lot was said and it was not a surprise.  It was by no mean comprehensive.  Perhaps a poor choice of words.

Working with what we have and attempting to build something that's never been done before, I feel we havn't done so bad.  You are right though.  Most involved here are not financial professionals, are not experts in exchange/market theory, and we are learning as we go and hopefully attracting those who are; I think from my perspective we are mostly losing intellectual capital, unfortunately.  I havn't seen many of those whom I considered great analytical minds around here for a long time, including yourself.  I'm hoping that these talents are still out there engaged but silent or busy. IDK

I think the market mechanics still need a lot care and examination.  I don't claim to know what the answers are. 

 
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 03:59:36 am by Xeldal »

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
Everything we do to hurt the stake holders and speculators to please the so-called "real user demand" was based on a white dream  . What kind of real users will use a system that haven't proven itself "too big to fail" like Bitcoin ? At this very early stage , stake holders and speculators are really taking out their money to pay for this eco-system , not the imaginary real user that will never come in the short term or long term (really , ask you aunt , your uncle , to use this system , see how they would react . Yeah ...I tried that one .  )
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline btswildpig

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1424
    • View Profile
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.


A peg without a price feed(AKA. The original idea of the BitShares whitepaper at 2013 ) was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to PTS and AGS and was a critical feature .
BitUSD and BitCNY have different value just because "it's called BitUSD or BitCNY" .
People gave millions of dollars to BM base on his word "The marker will come to a peg , no price feed was needed" .  It too was thoroughly discussed .

And so what ? It turned out the so called thoroughly discussion was based on faulty understanding of how a financial system works .
After BTS was released last year at August , The peg come online , and guess what ? It didn't work . A price feed was introduced finally .

(another side note : When we thoroughly discussed BTS2.0 , it said "all the dilution can vest for years , no fear of dilution on the market anymore .....and then when it comes to worker proposal , we finally understood "the function is there , we just don't use the option , instead , due to reality , we have to dilute to sell now ....... "" )

(Another side note : The merger was thoroughly discussed , BM must have thought all the possible outcomes . But I doubt he could have expected that BTS will become less marketcap than Doge in the market .")

So ....don't tell me about thoroughly discussed ..... We can't thoroughly discuss something that even BM and the rest of the community were no experts at it to begin with , or until the symptoms manifests .
« Last Edit: November 28, 2015, 03:25:25 am by btswildpig »
这个是私人账号,表达的一切言论均不代表任何团队和任何人。This is my personal account , anything I said with this account will be my opinion alone and has nothing to do with any group.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1920
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
The urgent crises is that we have many committee members gone wild, who do not understand the system they are representing. 
The other urgent crises is that we continue voting for these committee members who consistently demonstrate they don't have a clue how things work.

Settlement is not a loophole, and is nothing new.  Its been available since the begining.  it was thoroughly discussed and understood long prior to BTS2 and is a critical function. 

Any available arbitrage opportunity is due to improper pricing of bitCNY by its users/gateways etc.  If transwiser is taking a loss they need to adjust their pricing.  We do not need to change the entire design of bitshares markets to fit 1 gateways uninformed business model.

There is no need to disable the settlement.  If it doesn't already, forced settlement should take all available bids below the feed before pulling from the least collateralized shorts.

how can you be so fucking stupid?!

I have heard the word "force settlement" at the BTS2.0 announcement, however there is no detailed doc to describe how it works, my 200k cny short position comes from 1.0.  when 2.0 firstly come, I think it a big improvement that the monthly settlement is removed, but finally I find things are even worse.

actually when the feature is in development, alt has objected it in discussion, but no one care.

considering also the increasing SQR from 1100 to 1500 issue, many shorters are robbed at a moment, why BTS team alwasy be so cruel to shorters, do you decide to drive the shorters away?

do not make money is not a problem, being margin called because of insufficient collateral is not a problem, but if any time another one can force you to sell your BTS to him in a "fair price", that is a big problem,  not only that no matter how you  refined the price feed script the feed price will always diverge from the market price now and then and provide chance to speculators,  but also this kind of settlement will make it no sense for the shorters to short.

I completely believe that BitCNY does not need such a force settlement feature, so if possible i'd like to suggest to make the force settlement an asset-specific feature, and disable it for BitCNY. and then you can do what you like to BitUSD.

Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
@Akado it's not a proxies job to monitor. In fact, proxy is not a job at all in this business.

I know I only mentioned because you said you would monitor them if I'm not mistaken.
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline fav

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4278
  • No Pain, No Gain
    • View Profile
    • Follow Me!
  • BitShares: fav
@Akado it's not a proxies job to monitor. In fact, proxy is not a job at all in this business.

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
What are the expected total losses from this till the script is fixed
10 BTS? 20BTS? For this our engaged committee is ready to raise the fees?

Here is the fix btw:
replace this
Code: [Select]
for idx in range(0, len(price[base]["BTS"])) :
price["BTS"][quote].append( (float(price[base]["BTS"][idx] /ratio)))

with this... in pricefeeds.py
Code: [Select]
fixThis = 1.01

for idx in range(0, len(price[base]["BTS"])) :

     if base == 'cny' :
          price[quote]["BTS"].append( (float(price[base]["BTS"][idx]*fixThis/ratio)))
     else:
          price[quote]["BTS"].append( (float(price[base]["BTS"][idx] /ratio)))

 :P
« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 09:13:41 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Xeldal

  • Guest
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
That's we are waiting for.

Ok so I'm not technical enough to know how the fees work. But if this is right then it's witnesses fault and incompetence. Being a witness is not only about running a bot. Stuff like this should be checked daily to see if everything is fine.

Proxies monitoring witnesses what are they doing? Is this something that has been happening for a while, meaning it was witness incompetence and proxies (assuming it's their job to monitor witnesses but I guess it isnt') lack of attention or was this something that happened suddenly and no one had time to react yet?

Shouldn't witnesses take this kind of thing into account? If they are, then someone is at fault here.

And don't even come with the arguments I'm quick at pointing fingers. I'm just stating something that's obvious and really important.. This, like I said, if they didn't pay attention to their own feeds or if they could have done something to prevent this while maintaining balance within the system. .

The real issue is not feeds, nor is it settlement.  The real issue is that a CNY gateway is not making money with their service due to not understanding the market mechanics.  There is little documentation, and a language barrier so I don't really fault anyone for that.   

It sounds like they have suspended their service for the time being, which is the right thing to do.  And is really the only thing that has to be done with this "issue"

The feeds don't appear to be off by more then 1% or so, which is acceptable.  They're certainly not the 5% that's been claimed.

I'm sure witnesses can provide more accurate numbers for the feed, but again 1% is nothing to get worked up about.   Not to mention, 1% off of what? there is no official price of BTS, that we are trying to get closer to, there are simply many market prices aggregated for a fair approximation. So you should expect some variable % difference from your calculations with whatever market of choice you use.


Offline svk

Visualization of settlement orders in the current CNY:BTS market:



I don't think this should be in by default tbh, but I'll consider enabling it via the settings for advanced users.
Worker: dev.bitsharesblocks

Offline Bhuz

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 467
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bhuz
I stated something wrongly?????

What?

I have not stated that you whant to remove force satelment.... read just what you quoted man...just read it....
as for wrong statement do you want me to quote the OP precisely where it is flat wrong and where it is misleading?

I was referring to what Akado and Xeldad said about "witness should move and solve this" and "blaming it on settlement"

You just ended up in the quote thing :P

Offline tonyk

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3308
    • View Profile
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
+ 1

Why people doesn't read the whole post and the subsequent clarifications?

As already stated the witnesses need a new script to fix the issue.
The script will needs a partial refactoring on how to calculate the feed for CNY related markets.
Xeroc needs time to make this happen.


What radical changes? We are not asking to remove the settlement, nor are blaiming it as you already and wrongly stated.
We are asking to temporarily disable the function to have TIME to make the needed fix and in the meanwhile stop the "force settle" opportunists.

I stated something wrongly?????

What?

I have not stated that you whant to remove force sattlement.... read just what you quoted man...just read it....
as for wrong statement do you want me to quote the OP precisely where it is flat wrong and where it is misleading?


« Last Edit: November 27, 2015, 09:07:11 pm by tonyk »
Lack of arbitrage is the problem, isn't it. And this 'should' solves it.

Offline Akado

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: akado
if its a feed issue doesnt it mean ots on the witnesses to solve this? why dont they increase the price by 5% if thats the problem

exactly.  If its a feed issue, witnesses should move to making the proper adjustments.   blaming it on settlement and making radical changes to benefit an uninformed business is not the right approach.
That's we are waiting for.

Ok so I'm not technical enough to know how the fees work. But if this is right then it's witnesses fault and incompetence. Being a witness is not only about running a bot. Stuff like this should be checked daily to see if everything is fine.

Proxies monitoring witnesses what are they doing? Is this something that has been happening for a while, meaning it was witness incompetence and proxies (assuming it's their job to monitor witnesses but I guess it isnt') lack of attention or was this something that happened suddenly and no one had time to react yet?

Shouldn't witnesses take this kind of thing into account? If they are, then someone is at fault here.

And don't even come with the arguments I'm quick at pointing fingers. I'm just stating something that's obvious and really important.. This, like I said, if they didn't pay attention to their own feeds or if they could have done something to prevent this while maintaining balance within the system. .
https://metaexchange.info | Bitcoin<->Altcoin exchange | Instant | Safe | Low spreads

Offline Bhuz

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


As already stated the witnesses need a new script to fix the issue.
The script will needs a partial refactoring on how to calculate the feed for CNY related markets.
Xeroc needs time to make this happen.
My feed prices are always a bit higher than others.
Sources of the difference are:
1. I don't pull btc prices from bitcoinaverage but from btc/cny pair of yunbi/btc38.
2. I ignored other btc pairs of btc38 and yunbi

Wish this helps.

Thanks for the constructive reply.

Afaik xeroc plans to pull the prices for cny markets from btc/cny pair of Chinese exchanges (eg. yunbi, btc38, OKCoin) instead of using bitcoinaverage (still used for btc/usd), as you already do!