Author Topic: New BSIP discussion: Require asset owner permission to use asset as collateral?  (Read 176 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Customminer

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 464
  • Bitshares FTW!
    • View Profile
    • Gridcoin.US
  • GitHub: grctest
Should we require asset owner permission to use said asset as backing collateral for an MPA?

Recently, issue #1537 in the bitshares-ui Github repo highlighted the fact that despite the UI and documentation indicating that UIA cannot be used to back an MPA on the BTS DEX, the reality actually is that UIA are an allowed backing collateral asset type in the core code.

This BSIP is not arguing for/against UIA being used as an MPA's backing collateral, because this is already enforced by core (Abit has a testnet asset configured as such).

The purpose of this BSIP discussion is to decide whether or not you should require owner permissions/approval of the asset being assigned as backing collateral for a new MPA.

---

Why I think we should require permission

  • Any assets locked away as MPA backing collateral cannot be reclaimed/recalled by the UIA owner (even by force). This has the consequence of being unable to reduce the supply to 0, potentially preventing asset settings from being changed or the asset from being fully shutdown.
  • By 'wrapping' an UIA in an MPA 'container' the MPA owner can effectively impose new asset settings over the existing UIA flags/permissions/settings to the potential detriment of the UIA owner.

Why perhaps we shouldn't require such permissions


  • An asset owner may refuse (or be unable to) provide permission to use the asset as backing collateral, requiring an alternative asset for backing collateral.
  • The committee may be overwhelmed with requests to use committee owned assets as backing collateral, though that's subjective.
  • The committee would have a greater centralized control of backing collateral selection on the BTS DEX, however that could result in more private MPAs being created. The committee size could be increased too to offset risk.
  • Existing MPA with non-BTS backing collateral may make implementing such a permission requirement too complex? Perhaps existing MPA could be exempt?
  • What if the asset owner removed their approval at a later date? It'd have to be permanent approval unless supply was 0.
  • What happens if you have owner permissions of the backing asset & MPA, then transferred the backing asset ownership to another account?
  • Being able to avoid market fees and replace restrictive permission flags with an MPA is pretty cool.

Exclusions: The Bitshares core token (BTS) should be excluded, as nobody has ownership permissions over it.

Github link: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/80

---

What are your thoughts?

Can you think of any reasons for/against requiring permission to use an asset as backing collateral for an MPA?
Hertz, Beyond Bitshares, Gridcoin!

Offline Methodise

I'm interested. I've yet to collateralise anything other than BTS.
BTS: methodise

Offline Emma Lee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 41
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: Bitcoin
By 'wrapping' an UIA in an MPA 'container' the MPA owner can effectively impose new asset settings over the existing UIA flags/permissions/settings to the potential detriment of the UIA owner.