Committee Proposal: Urgent call for help by the Chinese Community

[bitcrab]

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

why 35% loss? who? tell me,  with snapshots at best.

[bitcrab]

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

The problem is whether those bad things happen because of BitShares' system rules or simply because someone did not use the right business model. that's the question here.

right, to locate the reason need much communication and discuss, in this case I think to disable the force settle  temporarily is a correct choice.

[tonyk]

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

Yes, I know these are the people I try to protect from your crap! The one that bought bitCNY thinking they can sell at the peg by force settlement and now only can do it for 35% loss....only so you can keep your unrealistic promises, while not losing a dime.

[Akado]

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

The problem is whether those bad things happen because of BitShares' system rules or simply because someone did not use the right business model. that's the question here.

[bitcrab]

no, someone has lost,  but that's not me, I demand to take actions not because anyone has suffered loss, but because the force settlement rule put a group of people in danger of getting big loss.

the reason why mankind is mankind, partly because they can forecast and take actions to prevent some bad thing from happening.

[fav]

Dear community,

The proposal 1.10.18 has passed last night, the force settlement feature has been disabled by setting a high fee. The following issue on github has been created:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/560

The frontend team and xeroc have been informed about this issue and have been kindly asked to recognize the importance of the subject. There is the alternative idea to make a change in the backend to buy from the open bids first before resorting to shorts, I'll see if I can have a discussion with @bytemaster regarding this.

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

on top of that, no one lost a single cent prior to the rule change if I understand this correctly. I think it's time to re-evaluate my committee votes sooner rather than later

[jakub]

Dear community,

The proposal 1.10.18 has passed last night, the force settlement feature has been disabled by setting a high fee. The following issue on github has been created:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/560

The frontend team and xeroc have been informed about this issue and have been kindly asked to recognize the importance of the subject. There is the alternative idea to make a change in the backend to buy from the open bids first before resorting to shorts, I'll see if I can have a discussion with @bytemaster regarding this.

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

So we are changing the rules because someone running business around BitShares was ignorant about those rules.
The only excuse that can be offered is lack of proper documentation for BitShares 2.0 - @bytemaster

[tonyk]

Dear community,

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

Good luck with turning the feature back on! For starters, bitcrap [yes crap for what he fed you with the last proposal] will claim that the new feed price do NOT follow close enough the 'real price', and will NOT vote for reversal until this is achieved... the precision needed will be 10^-7 to satisfy him.

[JonnyB]

This is bullshit.

Last night large bitCNY holders held and asset that was pegged to CNY.

This morning their bitCNY is not really pegged to anything and subsequently worth a lot less.

Does the bitshares community want to create a stable trustworthy alternative to bank money or not?

[mindphlux]

Dear community,

The proposal 1.10.18 has passed last night, the force settlement feature has been disabled by setting a high fee. The following issue on github has been created:
https://github.com/cryptonomex/graphene-ui/issues/560

The frontend team and xeroc have been informed about this issue and have been kindly asked to recognize the importance of the subject. There is the alternative idea to make a change in the backend to buy from the open bids first before resorting to shorts, I'll see if I can have a discussion with @bytemaster regarding this.

A proposal to turn on back the feature is scheduled for Wednesday, December 9th. Hopefully we'll have a liquidity bot next week for the CNY market, and the needed adjustments in the price feed and frontend/backend.

Thank you

Best regards
mindphlux

[BTSdac]

the root reason is
use cny buy bts on exchange , people cannot buy a big amount of BTS at a same price , because the process of buy would make price increase
but use bitcny force settle bts can settle his all bitcny to BTS at settle price.
 actually in the world , there is no bank , can convert all cny.   it mean if all people withdraw all their cny from bank ,  this bank must close, and in reality never all people want to withdraw their cny at same time, so bank just need to 10-20% cny stored in center bank to case withdraw,
So to solve this problem ,there are two direction
1.limit total force settle percentage
2.reduce radio of force settle .

[BunkerChainLabs-DataSecurityNode]

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.

 

The only pressure the committee should feel right now is to make sure they are considering the next course of action carefully to be the right one.. not the popular one.

[bitcrab]

Ok.
I personally prefer not to have forced settlement because I think it's unnecessary even though we're going after merchants, but other people and businesses in the community may want it so I'll let them push for it.  I would rather experiment first without it.   Then again I might just find a way to use forced settlement to make money first... tough thing is it might just wipe out the few remaining shorts there are in the system.  We'll see.

BTW your gateway always has been pretty good at exchanging 1CNY for one bitCNY... I remember it was just one or two percent off all the time.. how do you run your gateway business with the spreads so low?   Do you just let others buy and sell to each other as a temporary custodian and when you need extra bitCNY you just create it and purchase it yourself?  Just curious.  Thx.

to disable it globally is also ok for me.

yes, that's what will happen, speculators, not merchants are most interested in the force settlement feature, shorters will be robbed, they shorted in 1.0 when they judge BTS is underestimated, but now they are not able to hold their collateral with sufficient collateral ratio, but will be forced to sell the collateral in such a the current low price, isn't it ridiculous?

transwiser provide redeem service for BTC38 and charge 0.3% for fee, in my view, a MPA showed be pegged perfectly and then the market will adopt it, I cannot imagine if BitCNY today worth 1.05 CNY tomorrow worth 1.1CNY, it really has price floor, but who would like to use it? based on this view, I normally keep the BitCNY price in transwiser at 1+-0.5%。and users are more convinced that BitCNY are pegged well.

[merivercap]

@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?     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.

force settlement is designed to convince the merchant to accept MPA, mainly in US, in China there's no such problem, in China merchant has little chance to use BitCNY, because internet payment such as alipay are too developed and too powerful.

Ok.
I personally prefer not to have forced settlement because I think it's unnecessary even though we're going after merchants, but other people and businesses in the community may want it so I'll let them push for it.  I would rather experiment first without it.   Then again I might just find a way to use forced settlement to make money first... tough thing is it might just wipe out the few remaining shorts there are in the system.  We'll see.

BTW your gateway always has been pretty good at exchanging 1CNY for one bitCNY... I remember it was just one or two percent off all the time.. how do you run your gateway business with the spreads so low?   Do you just let others buy and sell to each other as a temporary custodian and when you need extra bitCNY you just create it and purchase it yourself?  Just curious.  Thx.

[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.

Why don't we enable it for bitCNY and disable it for bitUSD to learn?     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.

force settlement is designed to convince the merchant to accept MPA, mainly in US, in China there's no such problem, in China merchant has little chance to use BitCNY, because internet payment such as alipay are too developed and too powerful.