poll for disabling force settlement for BitCNY.

[sudo]

settlement should be Limited within a certain range of collateral rate

when collateral rate of bill  went into for example  ≤150%  bitAsset can start settlement
but when all collateral rate is enough   for example ≥200%  no need to  settlement


bitUSD lack Acceptance dealer    for example 1.1USD sell bitUSD at the same time  1.09 buy bitUSD
provide liquidity & make profit

I think this is a good idea.

thank you

[clayop]

settlement should be Limited within a certain range of collateral rate

when collateral rate of bill  went into for example  ≤150%  bitAsset can start settlement
but when all collateral rate is enough   for example ≥200%  no need to  settlement


bitUSD lack Acceptance dealer    for example 1.1USD sell bitUSD at the same time  1.09 buy bitUSD
provide liquidity & make profit

I think this is a good idea.

[sudo]

settlement should be Limited within a certain range of collateral rate

when collateral rate of bill  went into for example  ≤150%  bitAsset can start settlement
but when all collateral rate is enough   for example ≥200%  no need to  settlement


bitUSD lack Acceptance dealer    for example 1.1USD sell bitUSD at the same time  1.09 buy bitUSD
provide liquidity & make profit

[Empirical1.2]

I think we should give the feature a chance maybe with a few tweaks.

I understand there were some communication issues but you're a business doing high BitAsset volume and you weren't even professional enough to take the time to understand the new features properly.

So I don't think we can expect regular BitAsset users to be professional enough to try understand that there are major different rules for different BitAssets.

[bitcrab]

To set the record straight, a topic on permanently disabling force settlement for BitCNY or not, was NOT and is NOT on the Comittee's table.

Back to the discussion of whether to permanently disable force settlement for bitCNY or not:

In my personal opinion, a close discussion/consultation should be made between Transwiser and BM and team first before gathering feedback from the community.  This will help to focus on the main points and make a common decision easier.

I am open to any discussion, but I think now it's clear what to do next.

[38PTSWarrior]

I didn't vote and give my proxy vote to bytemaster or xeroc or dannotenstein. Because I don't know anything about it.

[cube]

To set the record straight, a topic on permanently disabling force settlement for BitCNY or not, was NOT and is NOT on the Comittee's table.

Back to the discussion of whether to permanently disable force settlement for bitCNY or not:

In my personal opinion, a close discussion/consultation should be made between Transwiser and BM and team first before gathering feedback from the community.  This will help to focus on the main points and make a common decision easier.

[tonyk]

I do not know about the poll but I just won a big open bet by the prominent committee member @Bhuz

This is not a committee's opinion but a personal survey. Nothing is decided yet. And I personally disagree with this opinion.

Read my quote... I just said the other party will try to run from the deal...and they are trying already. No blame to the committee YET....except for them being naïve.

[bitcrab]

@clayop:

anyway to disable settle for BitCNY and meanwhile enable it for BitUSD is a good choice, we fulfill the different demand from different communities, and at the same time we start an experiment to see how different rules will influence the user behavior/market/ecosystem.

China community is open, if time prove that force settlement bring prosperous and great market order, it's ok to reenable the feature for BitCNY, but I don't think that will happen, we understand deeply how this rule will be used by speculators to manipulate the market.

[donkeypong]

Committee members: this time please do not rush off to hold an urgent meeting and make a change that gets widely condemned. Be patient, conduct some due diligence, and have some respect for the long term vision. At that point, do what you will. Personally, I have no strong opinion on this issue, but I want to see you guys make a reasoned decision, not a hasty one.

[alt]

I will continue ask the question for person who support the settlement
will you short more bitCNY to support liquility, even you know your collatereal will be settlement any time?
if the answer is yes, how much will you sell 1 bitCNY for CNY?

[clayop]

I do not know about the poll but I just won a big open bet by the prominent committee member @Bhuz

This is not a committee's opinion but a personal survey. Nothing is decided yet. And I personally disagree with this opinion.

[tonyk]

I do not know about the poll but I just won a big open bet by the prominent committee member @Bhuz

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.

@tonyk
So, we told that this is a temporary solution, but you don't believe in this statement, right?
That is ok... I don't believe you too when you say that the force settlement will be permanently disabled!

Let's see who is right!

Anybody wanna bet?!

[rgcrypto]

I do not have the knowledge to make such radical decision.

[bitcrab]

I support disable force settlement not only for bitCNY but also for all  other asset,
should I select yes or no?

you should select yes, only BitCNY is involved in this poll.
if necessary, we can discuss other BitAssets in a new poll.