Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community

[sudo]

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 .

 

[wallace]

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.

UIA is a reasonable business .

But that's only if the market cap is big enough . NXT had UIA , only small time players play that . 

All it comes down to is market cap . No marketcap , no real users , no business partners .

I doubt people and organizations would recognize bitcoin this much if its market cap is as small as BitShares .

BitShares had it all backwards . It chased away the speculators , the investors at the very early stage where it needs them the most (just like start-ups need VC instead of finding users to generate income slowly ) .

We can't get real users because the system is not big enough .
Users will not risk their money (yeah ..BTA claims no risk , just like a bank without a decent office asking people to deposit money in their bank ) for a small operation .

I used to believe the real user demand crap , until one day I realize I couldn't even ate at a restaurant below my basic comfort zone ...how could I expect other people to risk their wealth
on something that's based on speculators' liquidity (basic theory of BTA) while the speculators are being treated like they doesn't matter to the system  , only real users does .

Even at today , when the developers propose to dilute to sell on the market , they didn't even know the precious buy order is not provided by the "real user" , but the "speculators" that they think was irrelevant to the greater cause .

As a freely traded object on the market , "demand" will not increase the value or the price of Bitsharws  , because there is always supply . The supply will not decrease just because someone release a nice wallet and have good faith that this wallet is for freedom , life for all human beings .

"The relationship between Supply and Demand"(Really , why other people keep saying if we have development and features , demand increase then price will increase ?? DO they not read books at all   That's not what it says in the books .    ) is what decides the price . And that law hasn't been broken , even gold, with with world wide participant , its price can not go higher at any given cycle even with increasing user demand . The only way to increase the value is if enough investment capital   to come in and balance the relationship between supply and demand over time .  That's how the real world works . Users who buys gold can't not stop Gold's price dropping , only after a period of time (cycles in history) gold's price can recover and go higher . Real user demand sounds good , but in financial market , user demand hardly matters to the price of a freely traded object .

Product and Shares are totally different concepts . BTS are shares , BitCNY are too shares in a different form (still based  on the speculative value of BYS) .
Users buy iPhones and contribute income for Apple . And investment capital (including all kinds of investment and retirement fund ) come to bet on the shares with more P/E ratio .
If Apple screws over the investment capital , no matter how many people uses iPhone , the price of Apple Stock will never recover in years .
That's why there is "customer support" and "investors relationship" department in Apple , because these two are not the same.

That's what's happening with BitShares . It thinks it can success with "real user demand" , just like they think Apple's stock price is the credit of Apple users alone , and not belong to the investment and retirement fund in the US .

 

[btstip]

Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...

• btswildpig: has been credited 1 FISTBUMP

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261613/topicseen.html#msg261613

Created by hybridd

[Tuck Fheman]

#sharebits "btswildpig" 500000000000000000 PERCENT

#sharebits "btswildpig" 1 FISTBUMP

[btstip]

Hey btswildpig, here are the results of your tips...

• btswildpig: User not found within system. Sign up over at http://sharebits.io/

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261605/topicseen.html#msg261605

Created by hybridd

[btswildpig]

#sharebits "btswildpig" 500000000000000000 PERCENT

[btstip]

Hey Tuck Fheman, here are the results of your tips...

• sudo: has been credited 5 PERCENT

Curious about BtsTip? Visit us at http://sharebits.io and start tipping BTS on https://bitsharestalk.org/ today!

Source: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20299.msg261601/topicseen.html#msg261601

Created by hybridd

[Tuck Fheman]

You're doing it wrong!

#sharebits "sudo" 5 PERCENT

[sudo]

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.

 

[Samupaha]

First of all, the most important rule of investing: never invest more money than you can afford to lose.

MPA-markets are still very dangerous because there are not enough documentation about market mechanics and risks. You really shouldn't invest much money in a market that you don't fully understand. What we are seeing here is what happens when people invest before they learn all the facts.

Because I haven't understood the MPA-markets well enough, I can't offer any solutions to this problem that you are now having.

But have you considered issuing your own smartcoin?

Privatized SmartCoins

BitShares offers entrepreneurs an opportunity to create their own SmartCoins with custom parameters and price feeds.

User-issued SmartCoin managers can experiment with different parameters such as collateral requirements, price feeds, force settlement delays and forced settlement fees. They also earn the trading fees from transactions the issued asset is involved in, and therefore have a financial incentive to market and promote it on the network. The entrepreneur who can discover and market the best set of parameters can earn a significant profit. The set of parameters that can be tweaked by entrepreneurs is broad enough that SmartCoins can be used to implement a fully functional prediction market with a guaranteed global settlement at a fair price, and no forced settlement before the resolution date.

Some entrepreneurs may want to experiment with SmartCoins that always trade at exactly $1.00 rather than strictly more than $1.00. They can do this by manipulating the forced settlement fee continuously such that the average trading price stays at about $1.00. By default, BitShares prefers fees set by the market, and thus opts to let the price float above $1.00, rather than fixing the price by directly manipulating the forced settlement fee.

I haven't heard that anybody has issued a privatized smartcoin yet. Maybe this would be a good opportunity to do it? If you are not satisfied with the default-MPA that Bitshares offers, maybe it would be best to create your own?

[merivercap]

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. 
 

If our gateways cannot maintain a tight spread, they are not useful. Transwiser isn't just one gateway for CNY out of many, it is our only CNY gateway. Their loss is our loss. We need people to be less rapped up in the theory behind how these markets should work and instead be more attentive to how these markets work in practice. As of right now Bitshares markets are dysfunctional to the point disrepair. We will collectively fail if we take this approach of "you should have known that the market works this way, its your fault and no one else's". We need to suspend this feature until we understand how to better account for it.

  We have so few businesses and people supporting BitAssets. If our only CNY gateway & other CNY businesses have a problem, we have a problem.

I agree we really got to be mindful of our most ardent supporters and those like Transwiser who's running a gateway on the platform.   I agree with bitcrabs sentiments and urgency. 

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 agree.  I was always against forced settlement, but it was probably more about no one really caring enough either way or not knowing exactly what the consequences would be that people just accepted it.  We have to continually discuss and improve the system... we have to learn and adapt and stay on top of how things are actually working. 

[btswildpig]

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.

UIA is a reasonable business .

But that's only if the market cap is big enough . NXT had UIA , only small time players play that . 

All it comes down to is market cap . No marketcap , no real users , no business partners .

I doubt people and organizations would recognize bitcoin this much if its market cap is as small as BitShares .

BitShares had it all backwards . It chased away the speculators , the investors at the very early stage where it needs them the most (just like start-ups need VC instead of finding users to generate income slowly ) .

We can't get real users because the system is not big enough .
Users will not risk their money (yeah ..BTA claims no risk , just like a bank without a decent office asking people to deposit money in their bank ) for a small operation .

I used to believe the real user demand crap , until one day I realize I couldn't even ate at a restaurant below my basic comfort zone ...how could I expect other people to risk their wealth
on something that's based on speculators' liquidity (basic theory of BTA) while the speculators are being treated like they doesn't matter to the system  , only real users does .

Even at today , when the developers propose to dilute to sell on the market , they didn't even know the precious buy order is not provided by the "real user" , but the "speculators" that they think was irrelevant to the greater cause .

As a freely traded object on the market , "demand" will not increase the value or the price of Bitsharws  , because there is always supply . The supply will not decrease just because someone release a nice wallet and have good faith that this wallet is for freedom , life for all human beings .

"The relationship between Supply and Demand"(Really , why other people keep saying if we have development and features , demand increase then price will increase ?? DO they not read books at all   That's not what it says in the books .    ) is what decides the price . And that law hasn't been broken , even gold, with with world wide participant , its price can not go higher at any given cycle even with increasing user demand . The only way to increase the value is if enough investment capital   to come in and balance the relationship between supply and demand over time .  That's how the real world works . Users who buys gold can't not stop Gold's price dropping , only after a period of time (cycles in history) gold's price can recover and go higher . Real user demand sounds good , but in financial market , user demand hardly matters to the price of a freely traded object .

Product and Shares are totally different concepts . BTS are shares , BitCNY are too shares in a different form (still based  on the speculative value of BYS) .
Users buy iPhones and contribute income for Apple . And investment capital (including all kinds of investment and retirement fund ) come to bet on the shares with more P/E ratio .
If Apple screws over the investment capital , no matter how many people uses iPhone , the price of Apple Stock will never recover in years .
That's why there is "customer support" and "investors relationship" department in Apple , because these two are not the same.

That's what's happening with BitShares . It thinks it can success with "real user demand" , just like they think Apple's stock price is the credit of Apple users alone , and not belong to the investment and retirement fund in the US .

[logxing]

Stop using the word "Chinese Community" please!

[Empirical1.2]

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

Either do something to help, shut up, or leave. 

Yeah I got told the same thing before the fantastic merger. (Either shut up, help/follow the great leader or sell.)

I would never set sail on a ship commanded by its passengers.
I would never bet on a ball team coached by its fans.
I would not invest in a company directed by its shareholders.

All is swell. 
If not, sell.

 

Unfortunately BM genuinely thinks he is God IIRC. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,10057.msg133746.html#msg133746
I've got used to it and just try to contribute my ideas to improve BTS regardless even if it's critical/disagrees with theirs.

[Empirical1.2]

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. 
 

If our gateways cannot maintain a tight spread, they are not useful. Transwiser isn't just one gateway for CNY out of many, it is our only CNY gateway. Their loss is our loss. We need people to be less rapped up in the theory behind how these markets should work and instead be more attentive to how these markets work in practice. As of right now Bitshares markets are dysfunctional to the point disrepair. We will collectively fail if we take this approach of "you should have known that the market works this way, its your fault and no one else's". We need to suspend this feature until we understand how to better account for it.

  We have so few businesses and people supporting BitAssets. If our only CNY gateway & other CNY businesses have a problem, we have a problem.