how about to optimize the parameters of bitCNY like this?

[pc]

Why do you want to screw current holders of bitCNY/bitUSD/whatever like this? Because you're in a short position and suffer from the latest BTS collapse?

With those changes you don't really screw them because they can still sell at any price .. All that the proposed change does is ask for a 1% fee on settlements with a restriction of 0.5% of supply to be settled every maintenance interval.

And even this can be fixed by setting a proposal expiration that is .. say 30 days .. then people that don't want to pay the 1% and wanted to settle, can still settle.

You cannot make sure that every holder of bitassets will notice.

The settlement function is the "guarantee" that holders can exchange their bitassets for the equivalent worth of BTS. Bitasset holders have bought under the assumption that this guarantee will hold. Now you want to reduce that guarantee from "equivalent worth" to "99% of its value", which will automatically devalue the affected bitassets and effectively rob bitasset owners of 1% of their holdings.

IMO we're going to lose all credibility if we start changing the rules in mid-game.

[Xeldal]

I support this change.  I think it's long overdue for both bitCNY and bitUSD.  Might even do this across the board for all smartcoins.

If max_force_settlement_volume is truly on an hourly basis, this change should be done without question.

[xeroc]

Why do you want to screw current holders of bitCNY/bitUSD/whatever like this? Because you're in a short position and suffer from the latest BTS collapse?

With those changes you don't really screw them because they can still sell at any price .. All that the proposed change does is ask for a 1% fee on settlements with a restriction of 0.5% of supply to be settled every maintenance interval.

And even this can be fixed by setting a proposal expiration that is .. say 30 days .. then people that don't want to pay the 1% and wanted to settle, can still settle.

I like the idea and started discussion about this a couple of times already. If the CNY-interested crowd of BTS shareholders are fine, we should derive an action plan and try to bring this to the committee!
Make sure to have an expiration of at least 30 days (that's what I see as a fair notice)

//edit: the poll you linked has been filled by only 10 people. so this probably needs some more discussions before it can be executed! I would even say, you should write a BSIP for that change for documentation reasons and to inform shareholders properly

[pc]

Why do you want to screw current holders of bitCNY/bitUSD/whatever like this? Because you're in a short position and suffer from the latest BTS collapse?

[bitcrab]

Would the change require a hard fork?

Would you recommend the change to any other smartcoin?

no, just need to create a proposal and get it approved by committee.
at least I recommend the change also apply to bitUSD, for others I am not sure.

[onceuponatime]

Would the change require a hard fork?

Would you recommend the change to any other smartcoin?

[bitcrab]

China community has some discussion on the parameter of bitCNY. most of the community member agree that some modification of the bitCNY parameters can make this smartcoin work better, I had issued a poll https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,22335.0.html to get opinions on such a change:

"force_settlement_offset_percent": from 0 to 1%   //to encourage the shorters
"maximum_force_settlement_volume": from 2% to 0.5% //as this parameter is per hour, not per day, so 2% is still too high, 0.5% is more reasonable

up to now the number of supporters:objectors is 8:1

I propose such a change based on my observation on the behavior of bitCNY and TCNY, obviously bitCNY is more acceptable than TCNY, however one interesting the 1% settlement offset actually encourage users to short TCNY, now I have about 50k TCNY in my hand without any debt -  because there are some other users to short and made me have no chance to short.

for one smartcoin it is necessary to encourage the shorters to provide more supply, and it seems always not easy for a privatized smartcoin to get enough trust like public smartcoin, previously I created TCNY because the parameters of bitCNY is not satisfying enough, but now I changed my mind - to do some change to bitCNY is a better way - to make one public smartcoin the best one will benefit the whole economy.

plan to discuss this topic in committee.

any thoughts?