Author Topic: [Witness Proposal] gdex-witnness  (Read 16848 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Let's be realistic ZB is voting what Bitcrab is telling them to vote.

He posted himself earlier that he is going to tell them what to vote for.

Quote
Also, BitShares-core comes with a lower limit of 11 witnesses - can't go below that.

So they are voting now to have a max of 11 witnesses.

Would love to know if the community agrees with this low amount of witnesses.

Also it was raised that ZB using their members BTS is very unethical and bitcrabs argumentation was they won't harm bitshares ecosystem.
I see voting only for 2 witnesses with such a big stake as harm expecially as it was dicussed before that voting only for themself won't be recognised by the system as a low number voting.
« Last Edit: April 26, 2019, 07:22:59 am by Thul3 »

Offline xeroc

  • Board Moderator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 12922
  • ChainSquad GmbH
    • View Profile
    • ChainSquad GmbH
  • BitShares: xeroc
  • GitHub: xeroc
Tough question actually. Why would they vote for anyone they don't know?
Also, BitShares-core comes with a lower limit of 11 witnesses - can't go below that.
Would you vote for a witness and committee member who uses BTS from an exchange wallet to vote only for 2 witnesses for the entire bitshares ecosystem ?


Bitcrab is currently voting with the BTS in ZB's wallet that the whole bitshares ecosystem should only have 2 witnesses in total.


Is he doing a good job with that voting ?

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Would you vote for a witness and committee member who uses BTS from an exchange wallet to vote only for 2 witnesses for the entire bitshares ecosystem ?


Bitcrab is currently voting with the BTS in ZB's wallet that the whole bitshares ecosystem should only have 2 witnesses in total.


Is he doing a good job with that voting ?
« Last Edit: April 26, 2019, 12:32:53 am by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
this is a poll with 2 worker proposals, not a budget based worker proposal.

here the essential point is which WP get more voting power, not whether the WP become active.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline finn-bts

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 234
    • View Profile
as in the Poll of bsip41 - worker proposals  1.14.144 and 1.14.155, far more voting power support to implement bsip41, gdex-witness plan to feed 1.05 as MSSR for bitCNY in 2 days.

bsip41: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0041.md
Sorry, I will vote for no until these wrong feed price been voted out.
I don't think witness should execute it until it become an active worker.

Cancellation of BSIP42 and execution of BSIP41 can be carried out at the same time. If cancellation of BSIP42 is not well executed after you support BSIP41, you can cancel the ticket of BSIP41 without much impact

Offline alt

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2821
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: baozi
as in the Poll of bsip41 - worker proposals  1.14.144 and 1.14.155, far more voting power support to implement bsip41, gdex-witness plan to feed 1.05 as MSSR for bitCNY in 2 days.

bsip41: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0041.md
Sorry, I will vote for no until these wrong feed price been voted out.
I don't think witness should execute it until it become an active worker.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
There is a high possibility that this is a bull trap.Actually the possibility is bigger being a bulld trap than a bull.
Reducing MSSR back to 105% makes that should the price go down again no margin will be eaten again.
The same mistake as before.
If you want MSSR 105% (which i support on acurat price feed as it make sense) make first sure to provide real feed price to ensure margin orders being eaten in a down trend.
At current price feed situation its just a protection for margins to not get eaten.

EDIT : Just saw it seems BTS on bitcny have now real price.

« Last Edit: December 19, 2018, 08:04:58 pm by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
The POLL is NO CONSENSUS.

You are BREAKING ALL RULES AS WITNESS !!!!!!

You have no right to change MSSR without creating a worker which will get voted in.

I will make sure that all witnesses which will change MSSR without a REAL community consensus will lose their voters.

he is talking about the on-chain poll

I know the NO BSIP42 is a clear signal to stop manipulation and that people want the margin to get eaten.What he is doing now is not changing price feed and lowering the MSSR back to 105% so margins won't be eaten anymore.
Also he is the only bigger proxy voting for BSIP41 so i doubt this is real consensus.

margin call orders are there at the top for long time, if bitCNY holders want to eat, they had done, if they won't, no need always let the margin call orders press the price and create high bitCNY premium.

bitcrab has only about 30M voting power, everyone can know whether I am the only big proxy to support bsip41.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
The POLL is NO CONSENSUS.

You are BREAKING ALL RULES AS WITNESS !!!!!!

You have no right to change MSSR without creating a worker which will get voted in.

I will make sure that all witnesses which will change MSSR without a REAL community consensus will lose their voters.

he is talking about the on-chain poll

I know the NO BSIP42 is a clear signal to stop manipulation and that people want the margin to get eaten.What he is doing now is not changing price feed and lowering the MSSR back to 105% so margins won't be eaten anymore.
Also he is the only bigger proxy voting for BSIP41 so i doubt this is real consensus.

Offline clockwork

  • Committee member
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • Posts: 376
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: clockwork
The POLL is NO CONSENSUS.

You are BREAKING ALL RULES AS WITNESS !!!!!!

You have no right to change MSSR without creating a worker which will get voted in.

I will make sure that all witnesses which will change MSSR without a REAL community consensus will lose their voters.

he is talking about the on-chain poll

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
« Last Edit: December 21, 2018, 08:11:22 am by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
as in the Poll of bsip41 - worker proposals  1.14.144 and 1.14.155, far more voting power support to implement bsip41, gdex-witness plan to feed 1.05 as MSSR for bitCNY in 2 days.

bsip41: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0041.md
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
plan for next update on bitCNY:

Pdex:BTS price in DEX in smartcoin
Pf: current feed price
premium: current premium
GS_price: global settlement price

scale= 0.5;
get Pdex, Pf, premium, GS_price;

black_swan_protection_price = GS_price*MSSR*1.01

while True:
   
   get Pdex, Pf, premium;
   if 0.5%>premium>-1%: ##just adopt the current median if the absolute premium is low enough.
       feed price = Pf;
   else:
       feed price = Pf*(1+premium*scale);
   feed price = min(feed price, Pdex*MSSR)
   feed price = max(feed price, Pdex, black_swan_protection_price)
 
   time.sleep(120); ##update every 2 minutes.
« Last Edit: November 29, 2018, 04:19:06 am by bitcrab »
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
What are your thoughts on enforcing not a 1:1 peg, but one with a constant premium? There have been discussions on it in telegram and I tend to agree that a small constant positive premium will behave more stable than 1:1.

In your algorithm that would correlate to something like

Code: [Select]
   ...
   target_premium = 0.5%; // arbitrary number, chosen here to reflect the lower bound of allowed premium to be 0

   get Pdex, Pf, premium;
   premium = premium - target_premium;
   ...

in current bitCNY situation, your algorithm will make feed price even lower. maybe that will lead to better pegging, but will make more margin call happen which seems not so necessary. this may be not good as now feed price is already more than 2% lower than DEX price in bitCNY market.

I prefer to accept a premium between -0.5% and 0.3% with adopt the current median.
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline sschiessl

  • Administrator
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 662
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: sschiessl
What are your thoughts on enforcing not a 1:1 peg, but one with a constant premium? There have been discussions on it in telegram and I tend to agree that a small constant positive premium will behave more stable than 1:1.

In your algorithm that would correlate to something like

Code: [Select]
   ...
   target_premium = 0.5%; // arbitrary number, chosen here to reflect the lower bound of allowed premium to be 0

   get Pdex, Pf, premium;
   premium = premium - target_premium;
   ...
« Last Edit: October 31, 2018, 08:08:47 am by sschiessl »