suggestion to witnesses on "the highest one" CNY price feeding model

[armin]

Bitcrab I think you need to think of the consequences of the alternative to "one exchange being manipulated." In the current system, using VWAP (Volume weighted average price), if one exchange is manipulated the feed price will slightly move downward, and the amount it moves downwards will be less than the amount on the manipulated exchange.

However, if you take "the highest one" model, you can just put a buy wall at a higher price than all other exchanges and the price will be very hard to move downwards. While I agree this will probably result in higher prices, it will inevitably lead to the price not actually reflecting what the market thinks BTS is worth - which is the problem VWAP was designed to solve. Doing so can create larger volatility (and more profit opportunities), so I guess it depends what the Bitshares community wants in the BTS market.

[gghi]

应该是外盘取平均，与内盘取最大，看内盘深度，如果到达某个理想深度，就取消外盘喂价

       感谢见证人讨论喂价问题。希望再提高喂价，努力消除溢价，让锚定更加精确。已经投票支持了。

[guoan]

支持

[xeroc]

for example, if many witnesses adopt "the highest price" model, and at one moment in one referenced exchange some unusual event happen and provide wrongly too high price that do not reflect the market status, how should the witnesses handle this? directly adopt the price will bring a disaster, I think witness need to have some logic, such as "if one exchange price is 20% higher than the average, give up it" , to filter out this kind of price.

Most witnesses have a fail-safe that does not push prices that are outside boundaries .. a price fall of 5% or more within 5 minutes must be manually confirmed.

Other strategies could well be to tune a price feed script to filter our "misbehaving" exchanges (outliners), but that's up to the witnesses to implement.

What we have seen recently was not an outliner but general market sentiment.

[bitcrab]

we all trust market, but in the real market the arbitrage is not always easy, if you want to do arbitrage between polo "BTS/BTC" pair and DEX "BTS/bitCNY" pair, you need to go through a long trading chain and always cost much time, so if in the referenced exchanges there are big price difference, adopt the highest is a good choice - always select the highest price make sense.

feed price do not necessarily reflect the instant market price fall, system should avoid the feed price be pulled down by sudden events in single exchanges,.that's why "the highest one" suggestion comes out.

surely there should be some "price fire wall" setting to avoid adopting unreasonable too high prices.

Let's not start "fighting the market" .. if *VOLUME SUPPORTS* a price crash, then the feed should acknoledge that fact and call for margin.

A price firewall is nuBits-style manipulation and we all know how that ended. So, either the market decides or the reserves are wasted into the markets for trying the achieve the impossible: "force a price".

I feel here is misunderstanding to the price fire wall.

for example, if many witnesses adopt "the highest price" model, and at one moment in one referenced exchange some unusual event happen and provide wrongly too high price that do not reflect the market status, how should the witnesses handle this? directly adopt the price will bring a disaster, I think witness need to have some logic, such as "if one exchange price is 20% higher than the average, give up it" , to filter out this kind of price.

[xeroc]

we all trust market, but in the real market the arbitrage is not always easy, if you want to do arbitrage between polo "BTS/BTC" pair and DEX "BTS/bitCNY" pair, you need to go through a long trading chain and always cost much time, so if in the referenced exchanges there are big price difference, adopt the highest is a good choice - always select the highest price make sense.

feed price do not necessarily reflect the instant market price fall, system should avoid the feed price be pulled down by sudden events in single exchanges,.that's why "the highest one" suggestion comes out.

surely there should be some "price fire wall" setting to avoid adopting unreasonable too high prices.

Let's not start "fighting the market" .. if *VOLUME SUPPORTS* a price crash, then the feed should acknoledge that fact and call for margin.

A price firewall is nuBits-style manipulation and we all know how that ended. So, either the market decides or the reserves are wasted into the markets for trying the achieve the impossible: "force a price".

[roelandp]

"bitasset.feeds.count(o.publisher)" That error usually means you are trying to publish a feed for an asset where you are not allowed to publish assets.
Are you still active witness?

Thx Fabian, thats what I also thought at first. However I made mistake with the config file. Whoops. Fixed now and integrated a weighted magic-wallet into my pricefeed.

[gghi]

             我想阐述一下喂价，我是去年开始研究BTS的，如有不对请指出。我认为喂价诞生那天起就是为锚定服务的，可事实五年了bitcny对人民币的波动范围很大，极限时候充值费率20%。说明了喂价算法需要修正。当前什么可以证明1bitcny=1yuan,我觉得没有比鼓鼓的充值费率更直观了。所以我建议用鼓鼓的充值费率来修正目前喂价。（即修正后的喂价=鼓鼓充值费率+见证人的喂价）如果费率上升，那么喂价上升可以减少爆仓单的抛压，会阻止bitcny继续升值。如果熊市里bitcny继续升值，对市场将会是非常严重的打击。


    I would like to elaborate on the price. I opened it last year to study BTS. If there is anything wrong, please point out. I think the price of feeding has been anchored since the day it was born, but the fact is that for five years bitcny has been volatile with a 20% premium rate on the RMB. It is shown that the feeding algorithm needs to be corrected. At present, what can prove 1bitcny=1yuan, I think there is nothing more intuitive than the bulge recharge rate. So I suggest that we use drum charging rate to correct the current feed price. If the rate rises, then the increase in the feed price can reduce the pressure on the explosion warrant and prevent the Bicny from rising. If bitcny continues to appreciate in bear market, it will be a serious blow to the market.

[bitcrab]

Every witness need to add the BTS trading pair of magicwallet+fee/CNC(AEX)/QC(ZB)/USDT(HUOBI,ZB,GATE,AEX) to the feed price.

I think this is were we should go.

The purpose of the volume-weighted average (in contrast to median) strategy is to let market decide the actual price.
Assuming strong arbitrage, we can say that the volume of that exchange that has the fairest valuation of BTS price also has
the highest volume. With the volume-weighted average, this would also result in a higher weight in the feed calculation at
the witnesses.

I'd say, let the market decide for a "fair" price of BTS (in CNY) and

* add DEX to price feeds
* keep CEXs in price feed
* add magic wallet to price feeds

After that, derive *volume-weighted average*.

If market decides that 1 bitCNY is worth 1.06 CNY, then the 6% premium is market driven and could be justified by the additional utilty of smartcoins - IMHO

if we agree that BTS needs to provide more convenience to longers and make shorting more difficult, then the "volume-weighted average" do not make big sense.

DEX price should be the base price reference, not only because it is our native/local/own exchange, but also because it is decentralized and transparent and free of faded trading data.

CEXs with high volume, good liquidity and good API can also be take as referenced exchanges.

we all trust market, but in the real market the arbitrage is not always easy, if you want to do arbitrage between polo "BTS/BTC" pair and DEX "BTS/bitCNY" pair, you need to go through a long trading chain and always cost much time, so if in the referenced exchanges there are big price difference, adopt the highest is a good choice - always select the highest price make sense.

feed price do not necessarily reflect the instant market price fall, system should avoid the feed price be pulled down by sudden events in single exchanges,.that's why "the highest one" suggestion comes out.

surely there should be some "price fire wall" setting to avoid adopting unreasonable too high prices.

[armin]

I checked the witness list and it seems like he's active

[xeroc]

"bitasset.feeds.count(o.publisher)" That error usually means you are trying to publish a feed for an asset where you are not allowed to publish assets.
Are you still active witness?

[roelandp]

For now I have adjusted my weighted inputs from several market API feeds. It results in lesser banding from my feed, closer in the -0.7% +0.7% range of the median. I have applied and tested the magicwallet api by using the btsprice tool, however it is currently giving me an `Assert Exception: bitasset.feeds.count(o.publisher):` when trying to publish with the adjusted code. I will try to debug this and see how to get magicwallets data added to my feed-weighing. Thank you.

[gghi]

          看看现在内盘的惨状，如果内盘的及时成交价是博弈的结果，那么喂价完全是人为的结果。为什么我们可以接受喂价长期低于外盘，而不能接受喂价长期高于外盘？当前的喂价必须修正，结果最好是略高于外盘才比较合适，望大家努力改变当前的现状，勇于改革。

[PTS中国]

  很开心能见到社区里有意义的讨论 喂价是比特股的价值基石（强平引信） 也是系统锚定外盘价格的信息桥梁 当鼓鼓的充值费率为正X 喂价补偿X 换句话说 就是强平阈值变相降低了X 但这个真的好吗？分析一下利弊，益处：
1、小幅提高做空的成本，强平风险小幅走低，利于抵押制造流动性
2、喂价的可控性变灵活，理事会调节市场流动性能力小幅增强
弊端：
1、损害了喂价功能去信任化的天然价值，内外盘市场价格信息传递失真
2、强平阈值改善有限，喂价提高10%，爆仓价降低10%，但鼓鼓充值费率趋近0以后，喂价必然随动恢复等值，此时可能会导致贴线抵押单批量爆仓，反而打击了内盘的价格，有副作用
3、由于仅是小幅改善流动性，鼓鼓充值费率很难得到明显降低，该强平时依然强平，锚定精度无法明显改善

综上所述，个人认为喂价随动充值费率的改进弊大于利，权衡之，不建议采用执行。

当下之际，改善锚定精度的进化确是社区发展所急，光反对不支招显然不可取，在改善提高锚定精度的过渡期，建议我们简单改进一下爆仓机制，转换一下思维，强平时为何要以惩罚币价的形式抛出爆仓单？完全可以以奖励的模式强平嘛，简单说，就是系统强平单不以1/1.1的价格挂单砸盘，而是以喂价平价挂爆仓单，这个时候 市场竞速买到爆仓单延迟一个固定时间奖励10%的BTS，强平单如此改进后一点都不打击币价，强平强平强力平价挂出嘛，且慢，有铁粉会说，既然辛苦努力抢到有奖励的爆仓单，我完全可以选择卖掉10%奖励的BTS；且慢 这里存在两个因素了，一是空头愿意卖掉不等于其他抢到爆仓单的买入方都愿意砸盘（特别是多方），换言之，空头很难砸到原来1/1.1的低位币价，从而可以有效的延缓空头借助爆仓单达到的循环爆仓打击币价之目的，二是延期给付的奖励BTS会有保价的效应，作为普通交易者买到爆仓单后，奖励的BTS还没到手，肯定不舍得死命砸盘来获得后期折价的奖励，延期之后，至少可以有效延缓币价的拋压，从而促进锚定的精准性，这样的改进完全不伤及系统喂价的公允价值与这个信息桥梁的去信任化天然价值，而效果却是显而易见的。

[bitcrab]

proxy bitcrab unvote witness roelandp as the feed price keeps 2% more lower than the BTS price in DEX.

[Thul3]

I'd say, let the market decide for a "fair" price of BTS (in CNY)

Using unnatural massiv buy walls and community funds to "maintane BTS price"?That is more like centralised plan business in the 80's which we all now where it leaded

Assuming strong arbitrage, we can say that the volume of that exchange that has the fairest valuation of BTS price also has
the highest volume.

I would agree on that if there were no massiv targeted interventions to keep a price up.Buying BTS in batches is something diffrent than creating buy walls.And you guys still have no official rules or transparency how you will use the commitee accounts in future (beside bitcrabs statement about keeping building unnatural prices) i can't agree on this without having any clear rules and most important transparancy about the OMO.


I would like first to get clear answers if the OMO will still be used to create big unnatural buy walls or if it will be used like it was supposed to buy BTS in batches on diffrent prices depending on the CR and What kind of Ratio allows the commitee accounts to buy more BTS

[gghi]

      充值手续费长期为正是不合理的，尤其是目前已经偏离很大了，我们应该想办法阻止这种现象。

     bts是要锚定成功，什么是锚定成功，对于bitcny来说，充值费用为零就是最完美的锚定成功。
 
      充值手续费经常很高，bitcny波动很大，不利于bts的价格稳定上升。我认为可以从充值手续费上做文章，有三种情况分析，第一，充值费用为零，说明状态很好，锚定稳定了。第二，充值费用很高，说明bitcny供应不足，那么应该把充值费率用加上见证人的喂价作为系统喂价，以提高喂价的方式维持锚定的稳定。第三，充值费用倒贴，也就是为负的情况，说明bitcny供应过大，那么用负费率加见证人的喂价作为系统喂价，以降低喂价的方式维持锚定的稳定。

          喂价要修正，通过鼓鼓充值费率加上见证人的喂价作为系统喂价，可以避免充值费率变化很大，更好的锚定1BITCNY=1元。
       比如 ，见证人喂价1元，充值费百分之十，那么系统喂价则1.1。只要充值费为正，就可以拉高喂价，从而降低充值费率。这样的动态修正的结果，就是可以保证充值费率可以长时间的在0元附近，也就是保证了bitcny对人民币的锚定在很小的范围内变化。


              只要充值费为正，那么我们就可以加上去，不要担心会偏离市场价格，因为内盘价格足够高的时候充值费会为负的。





BTS is anchoring success, what is anchoring success, for bitcny, zero charge is the most perfect anchoring success.

The charging fee is often very high, and bitcny fluctuates greatly, which is not conducive to the stable rise of BTS prices. I think we can make an article from the charge, there are three kinds of situation analysis, first, the charge is zero, indicating that the state is good, anchoring stability. Secondly, the high cost of recharge indicates that the supply of bitcny is insufficient, so the rate of recharge should be used as the system feeding with the witness's feeding price, in order to improve the feeding way to maintain the stability of anchoring. Thirdly, the reverse charge, i.e. negative case, shows that the supply of bitcny is too large, then use the negative rate plus the witness's feed as the system feed price to maintain the anchoring stability by reducing the feed price.

Feeding to be revised, through drum charging rate plus witness feeding as a system feeding, you can avoid charging rate changes greatly, better anchoring 1 BITCNY = 1 yuan.
For example, the witness's feeding price is 1 yuan, the recharge fee is ten percent, then the system feed price is 1.1. As long as the charging fee is positive, the feed price can be raised, thereby reducing the recharge rate. The result of this dynamic correction is that the charging rate can be kept near 0 yuan for a long time, that is to say, the anchoring of Bicny to RMB can be changed in a small range.






           

[xeroc]

Every witness need to add the BTS trading pair of magicwallet+fee/CNC(AEX)/QC(ZB)/USDT(HUOBI,ZB,GATE,AEX) to the feed price.

I think this is were we should go.

The purpose of the volume-weighted average (in contrast to median) strategy is to let market decide the actual price.
Assuming strong arbitrage, we can say that the volume of that exchange that has the fairest valuation of BTS price also has
the highest volume. With the volume-weighted average, this would also result in a higher weight in the feed calculation at
the witnesses.

I'd say, let the market decide for a "fair" price of BTS (in CNY) and

* add DEX to price feeds
* keep CEXs in price feed
* add magic wallet to price feeds

After that, derive *volume-weighted average*.

If market decides that 1 bitCNY is worth 1.06 CNY, then the 6% premium is market driven and could be justified by the additional utilty of smartcoins - IMHO

[bitcrab]

this comment will focus on the problem "is the current feed price accurate enough?"

to find the answer, let's check if one trader want to buy/sell BTS with fiat CNY, what price is avaliable?

here is the price chart at the time of UCT+8 13th, 17:00


at the time the price has been stable for half an hour and the latest price is 0.805.

at the moment the fee/compensation for bitCNY deposit/withdraw in magicwallet is as below:

deposit:


withdraw:


so let's set bitCNY premium =6%

so in DEX 0.805*1.06=0.853 is a close to "real" price.

but at the moment the feed price, the median of all fed prices, is 0.84, 1% more lower.

if you check in different time， you can find the more than 1% deviation to lower is always the case.

in a financial system, this deviation is not acceptable.

recently CNY are in high devaluation expectation, in DEX the bitUSD/bitCNY ratio are alway higher than 7, but the bitUSD/bitCNY fee price ratio are still always lower than 6.88, clearly many witness still use the officially published USD/CNY ratio to do price conversion, but this is far from market reality and the algorithm need to be upgraded.

this help to explain why there is so big deviation, official published USD/CNY ratio are used to do the price conversion by some witnesses, but CNY/USD is not totally free market and now one cannot buy USD using CNY with the official ratio, this and other factors make the calculated feed price incorrect.
 

[bitcrab]

we need to pay more attention on DEX, DEX is decentralized and more transparent than CEX, and BTS/bitCNY pair in DEX has the biggest BTS volume on the earth, it's easy to do bitCNY/fiat CNY conversion, DEX price should be the base reference for CNY price feeding.

the margin call rule is designed to release risk in time, not to provide chance for shorters to make profit, if there are too much chances for shorters, shorters will take the money from longers and keep on shorting, this will hurt the whole ecosystem, the suggestion is not to change the basic logic of a financial system with leverage, but to provide more convenience to longers, and then give more power for the ecosystem to grow.

within "the highest price" model, shorters can also short, but need to pull down the prices in all the involved exchanges and then can make the feed price down, and debt positions are protected from targeting activities or unusual events, all this encourages longers.

and this will help to make DEX the main long-short the war field, this also benefit the field.

recently CNY are in high devaluation expectation, in DEX the bitUSD/bitCNY ratio are alway higher than 7, but the bitUSD/bitCNY fee price ratio are still always lower than 6.88, clearly many witness still use the officially published USD/CNY ratio to do price conversion, but this is far from market reality and the algorithm need to be upgraded.

to speed up the upgrade of price feeding, proxy bitcrab begin to unvote the witness that behave unsatisfactory in price feeding.

in current check point, DEX latest BTS price:0.766bitCNY, bitCNY premium 7.3%, reference price:0.822 CNY.
the median feed price is 0.8087 at the point, please don't say "my price is close to the median so works well" , the median price is not good now and what we try to do is to change this.

delegate-1.lafona always feed too low price in the recent several check, so now proxy bitcrab unvote the witness temporarily.



magicwallet is planning to provide a feed price monitor page, to show data from each witness in a candle chart, then it will be easy to see which witness provide good price feeding and which does not.

[gghi]

  巨蟹的思路式对的，目前喂价必须改，巨蟹还是保守了点。目前的喂价应是鼓鼓充值费率加见证人的喂价作为系统喂价才合理。



 充值手续费经常很高，bitcny波动很大，不利于bts的价格稳定上升。我认为可以从充值手续费上做文章，有三种情况分析，第一，充值费用喂零，说明状态很好，锚定稳定了。第二，充值费用很高，说明bitcny供应不足，那么应该把充值费率用加上见证人的喂价作为系统喂价，以提高喂价的方式维持锚定的稳定。第三，充值费用倒贴，也就是为负的情况，说明bitcny供应过大，那么用负费率加见证人的喂价作为系统喂价，以降低喂价的方式维持锚定的稳定。

[binggo]

Every witness need to add the BTS trading pair of magicwallet+fee/CNC(AEX)/QC(ZB)/USDT(HUOBI,ZB,GATE,AEX) to the feed price.

BTS（CEX）:
https://www.binance.com/
https://www.zb.com/
https://www.huobipro.com
https://www.aex.com
https://gate.io/
https://hitbtc.com
https://www.cointiger.com
https://www.lykke.com/
https://www.exx.com/
http://www.lbank.info/
http://u.cx/
https://www.coinegg.com/
https://big.one/
https://www.uncoinex.com
 
https://poloniex.com （don't suggest）
https://yobit.net 

[binggo]

we support the suggestion of bitcrab. just do it!

Don't talk for all.Majority doesnt support it

Don't talk for all.Majority support it

We are well aware that you are a puppet from bitcrab and everyone supporting this shit was part of crashing the commitee accounts which needs now to be bailed out with community funds.

ebit,jademont,bitcrab and these people are trying now to get us the "highest one" model.....

Somebody claimed because it's based on highest volume.Lets do it based on highest volume but i highly doubt bitcrab would accept it since it would mean we would accept mainly the price of DEX.Since DEX is always under feed price in a bear market what sence would it make to lower the feed price and cause the next margin call wave.....
So the smart bitcrab is going to take only the feed price from DEX when it is supposed to help him to stop his margin calls.
So when is DEX price in a bear market going to be higher than the current price feed ?
Answer.......only when he puts a big buy wall again like last time.And taking that high unnatural price as feed price will make that the buy wall won't be eaten so quickly even the rest of the market is going massivly down.

Its a clear feature to strenght his manipulation attempt which majority doesn't accept as it has nothing to do with attacks or anything which bitcrab himself confirmed its not so easy anymore and he put that request instantly after his buy wall got eaten because his low margin ratio have been called as external exchanges had a lower price as the price on DEX which were manipulated by his 5 million BTS wall.


Just clearly say the purpose of that change is to strengthen the buy walls so they can't get crushed anymore even the price doesn't represent the value buyers are willing to pay.Creating a centralised controlled price which has nothing to do anymore with free market.

If you argument that DEX has the highest volume then also accept the lower price of DEX as price feed since based on your argument its also the most representiv as it has the highest volume.
Don't pick only the timeframes out which are in your personal favour to manipulate

Thul3， please don't like a dog shouting everywhere and everybody!!!
             just shut up!!!

[Thul3]

we support the suggestion of bitcrab. just do it!

Don't talk for all.Majority doesnt support it

Don't talk for all.Majority support it

We are well aware that you are a puppet from bitcrab and everyone supporting this shit was part of crashing the commitee accounts which needs now to be bailed out with community funds.

ebit,jademont,bitcrab and these people are trying now to get us the "highest one" model.....

Somebody claimed because it's based on highest volume.Lets do it based on highest volume but i highly doubt bitcrab would accept it since it would mean we would accept mainly the price of DEX.Since DEX is always under feed price in a bear market what sence would it make to lower the feed price and cause the next margin call wave.....
So the smart bitcrab is going to take only the feed price from DEX when it is supposed to help him to stop his margin calls.
So when is DEX price in a bear market going to be higher than the current price feed ?
Answer.......only when he puts a big buy wall again like last time.And taking that high unnatural price as feed price will make that the buy wall won't be eaten so quickly even the rest of the market is going massivly down.

Its a clear feature to strenght his manipulation attempt which majority doesn't accept as it has nothing to do with attacks or anything which bitcrab himself confirmed its not so easy anymore and he put that request instantly after his buy wall got eaten because his low margin ratio have been called as external exchanges had a lower price as the price on DEX which were manipulated by his 5 million BTS wall.


Just clearly say the purpose of that change is to strengthen the buy walls so they can't get crushed anymore even the price doesn't represent the value buyers are willing to pay.Creating a centralised controlled price which has nothing to do anymore with free market.

If you argument that DEX has the highest volume then also accept the lower price of DEX as price feed since based on your argument its also the most representiv as it has the highest volume.
Don't pick only the timeframes out which are in your personal favour to manipulate

[ymtt]

we support the suggestion of bitcrab. just do it!

Don't talk for all.Majority doesnt support it

Don't talk for all.Majority support it

[Thul3]

we support the suggestion of bitcrab. just do it!

Don't talk for all.Majority doesnt support it

[hzbtstalker001]

we support the suggestion of bitcrab. just do it!

[bitcrab]

select a time and check the feed price

at the time in DEX the latest price is 0.728 bitCNY, from magicwallet we can see bitCNY has a 7.8% premium, so the price in DEX is 0.728*1.078 = 0.785



the marked red feed prices are 2% more lower than the DEX price and are not satisfactory.



the point is not how big 2% is, the point is that the debt position should be protected until the last time, should be prevented from being destroyed by any unusual events in any exchanges, that's the core idea of "the highest one" road.

hope more witnesses can switch to this price feeding model in recent future.

[bitcrab]

the way i see it that markets are always on the move. every witness is running pricefeed scripts monitoring the markets. this should be as accurate as possible sand have certain treshold when to update parameters in place. some witnesses run updates at fixed intervals, others whenever price changes by x percent or a combination of both. pricefeeds are always reactive to the market and some witnesses respond faster or frequenter then others  or have different parameters for example in weight of individual exchanges. this leaves to differences in published feeds and that is something which is when dealing with this living organic oracle a good thing I think. because the ultimate pricefeed is taken from the median any anomalities are equalled out, provided enough witnesses are running correct pricefeedscripts.

that said, i will give a look whether my markets-to-monitor portfolio is still accurate.
clockwork suggested about cointiger. i will add that one asap.

currently looking at https://roelandp.nl/bitshareswitnesslog/ i see my feed for CNY diverges 1.7% from the current median: (1.27 vs 1.25) which I think is perfectly within bounds.

on my aforementioned page, pricefeeds with divergence of more than 5% off median are reported in red as well as outdated pricefeeds

update: to chime in on the “markets always moving statement”: now im looking 1 hour later at my feed and see a difference of 0.9% from the median (1.24) in my published feed at 1.25.

note that the page caches results for 15 minutes.

my suggestion give some new idea on price feeding, in order to protect debt positions from being destroyed by targeting attacks or unusual events as mentioned below.

we observed such CEX behavior not once, especially on poloniex when they closing withdraw/deposit and dumping bts
dex community must protect themselves from such behavior

so if we accept the new model, the metrics to judge whether one withess feed price correct enough will be different: say, if your fed price are always obviously (more than 1%) lower than the price of anyone exchange, you should fix it.

[blockchained]

we observed such CEX behavior not once, especially on poloniex when they closing withdraw/deposit and dumping bts
dex community must protect themselves from such behavior

[roelandp]

the way i see it that markets are always on the move. every witness is running pricefeed scripts monitoring the markets. this should be as accurate as possible sand have certain treshold when to update parameters in place. some witnesses run updates at fixed intervals, others whenever price changes by x percent or a combination of both. pricefeeds are always reactive to the market and some witnesses respond faster or frequenter then others  or have different parameters for example in weight of individual exchanges. this leaves to differences in published feeds and that is something which is when dealing with this living organic oracle a good thing I think. because the ultimate pricefeed is taken from the median any anomalities are equalled out, provided enough witnesses are running correct pricefeedscripts.

that said, i will give a look whether my markets-to-monitor portfolio is still accurate.
clockwork suggested about cointiger. i will add that one asap.

currently looking at https://roelandp.nl/bitshareswitnesslog/ i see my feed for CNY diverges 1.7% from the current median: (1.27 vs 1.25) which I think is perfectly within bounds.

on my aforementioned page, pricefeeds with divergence of more than 5% off median are reported in red as well as outdated pricefeeds

update: to chime in on the “markets always moving statement”: now im looking 1 hour later at my feed and see a difference of 0.9% from the median (1.24) in my published feed at 1.25.

note that the page caches results for 15 minutes.

[bitcrab]

the fed price from several witnesses are obviously lower than it should be. as marked red in the pic.

at the time of the snapshot, in DEX the price is above 0.815CNY.

hope the marked witnesses can upgrade the price feeding scripts in time.

[bitcrab]

reply to several comments:

"the highest one" model surely cannot prevent the debt position from being margin called, earlier or later, what the new model can bring is:

1. it makes more difficult for shorters to do the "targeting selling to make margin calling", I believe this kind operation will disappear if the new model can be applied by most of the witnesses.

2. previously some abnormal low price appear and make some position margin called, which actually should not happen, for example, last year when polo stoped BTS deposit/withdraw, this happened several times. the new model can prevent this events from happening.

the harm of fed price bias to longers(debt position owner) and shorters are asymmetric，when lower bias happen, longers are hurt by margin calling, when higher bias happen, nothing happen to shorters, they can go to the exchange with highest price and sell BTS.

the margin call rule is designed to release risk in time, not to provide chance for shorters to make profit, definitely the rule should be more friendly to longers.

the BTS/bitCNY pair in DEX has the biggest volume of BTS on the earth, and it's easy to do bitCNY/fiat CNY conversion, so it's a reliable price data source, and adopt "the highest one" bring no problem, if the highest price is too high than that in other exchanges, arbitrator will pull it down rapidly.

[sschiessl]

我反对！
我支持增加bitcny的发行量，但是不是靠采取最高喂价来实现！
一是最高喂价更容易作弊以及弄虚作假；
二是即使采用了最高喂价，且所有喂价都合理，则等到爆仓单压下来的时候，一样是该爆掉的爆掉。这样做最多只是缓解了一下而已，将来的结果无非是再给空军送一次韭菜！

Please open a Chinese thread in the respective section of.this forum.

[gmgogo]

我反对！
我支持增加bitcny的发行量，但是不是靠采取最高喂价来实现！
一是最高喂价更容易作弊以及弄虚作假；
二是即使采用了最高喂价，且所有喂价都合理，则等到爆仓单压下来的时候，一样是该爆掉的爆掉。这样做最多只是缓解了一下而已，将来的结果无非是再给空军送一次韭菜！

[sschiessl]

Can we keep this important discussion English please?

[Yao]

Suggestion was not for core to use MAX of price feeds...core would still use median...suggestion was for individual pricefeeds to take the max between CEXs and DEX...

The more I think about, the more merits I can find in this approach. Still, I do not think we can weight DEX and CEX equally, we should stick with *VOLUME* and than it is no different than
considering the DEX as much an exchange as any other too, from point of view of the feed produer

Firstly, a note, volume can be faked.

As of writing, among all CEXs, Poloniex's BTS/BTC market has the best market depth (which IMHO is liquidity), around 2M BTS on each side (aka walls) near the center.

Depth of all other CEXs are far less, for example, ZB.com's BTS/USDT market has only 200K BTS on the book near the center.

However, according to CoinMarketCap (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets), Poloniex only produced 2% of total volume, while ZB produced more than 20%, not to mention that LBank has even less BTS on the book but generated more total volume.

Another metrics is total BTS hold in their wallets, which should be somehow positively correlated to volume. From https://cryptofresh.com/ballots, we can see Poloniex has 187M BTS in their wallet and generated 3M daily volume, ZB has around 45M and generated around 20M daily volume. LBank? I don't even know which account is theirs. I guess I'll change my price feed script to weight price by this metrics.

I'd say price on Poloniex is realer than ZB or LBank. With deeper depth on the book, it's harder to push the price up or down.

However, who knows whether the amounts on the book are real? The big walls could be (and likely are) set by one person, in this case he can cancel it at any time and push the price towards any direction when he wants.

To get a stabler price, we need to make market, say, put up real buy and sell walls on the centralized exchanges. Anyway, there are many risks involved if to do so.

Another option is to make market in the DEX. We have OpenLedger, Gdex, CryptoBridge and etc are actually same as CEXs, we can put up walls there, produce volumes there. No, don't count in bitAssets markets, they're derivatives, their value need to be calculated out thus hard to be used directly.

I am totally agree with @abit

在数据不透明的中心化交易所，“量作假”很容易（刷量），“深度作假”也很容易（卖单卖的是白条，买单用的是假钱，可以随时撤单，不幸成交就是亏空，交易所会想办法弥补亏空），对于没有量也没有深度的交易所“价格作假”也很容易。

喂价需要一个可信赖的“真量”、“真深度”从而有“真价格”的市场，这样的市场只能在基于BitShares这样的区块链搭建的透明交易所里实现。同时 @abit 也提到不能依靠bitCNY（以及所有 SmartCoins）这类衍生品市场，衍生品的价格本身受影响因素较多（充提费率的人为设定因素、内外盘搬砖效率、市场波动频率和幅度、喂价脚本计算价格的策略和数据源的可信度……等），价格失真是常态。那就需要发展BitShares的网关资产（即UIA代币）市场，让BTS直接与“网关法币”（gateway Fait，Fait CNY/USD、……）和“网关加密资产”（gateway crypto-assets，XXX.BTC/ETH/EOS、……）进行交易产生可靠的市场价格，但需要解决的问题是UIA本身的透明度。

CryptoBridge在“网关加密资产”（gateway crypto-assets）的透明度方面做了很好的探索，用户充值BTC时发行（issue）等额的BRIDGE.BTC，而用户提现BTC时就销毁（burn）等额的BRIDGE.BTC，实际流通的BRIDGE.BTC与CryptoBridge网关托管的真实BTC是基本相同的，公开其网关的BTC地址即可证实其可靠性！

我们还需要解决的是“网关法币”（gateway Fait）的透明度和可靠性，有以下几种方式：
①银行账户背书的网关法币监管等政策风险较大，透明性则需要通过第三方审计等方式来证明其有100%真实法币进行背书，就像USDT。
②直接用USDT，虽然任何人都可通过区块链进行审计，但USDT本身是需要传统的第三方审计的。
③还有一种相对可靠方式：以bitCNY为100%备付金背书发行替代稳定货币，如XCNY，1XCNY=￥1.00。多签管理的备付金托管账户的bitCNY在BitShares链上可查，XCNY的流通量在BitShares链上也可查，这样透明性和可靠性都有保证。

[johnson]

the max price algorithm is for "BTS price", so if apply, should be applied to ALL smart coins. otherwise there should be enough gap (for price feed) between CNY and other smart coins. 

if apply to CNY only, will make bitCNY much cheaper according to real currencies.

The fact is，the bitcny is usually  expensive then RMB now.

[johnson]

应该是外盘取平均，与内盘取最大，看内盘深度，如果到达某个理想深度，就取消外盘喂价

这样也可以，核心就是让暴力砸盘拉低喂价吃尸体的做法不再行得通。

这个太激进，不适合bitcny，可以拿bitjpy测试。

现在取消喂价还太激进。当bts有20亿都抵押的情况下，还可以尝试一下。不然分分钟被空军
把内盘砸穿

[bitcrab]

one question, after we guarantee the basic fairness, should the business logic be more friendly to longers or shorters?

definitely longers, I think no need to explain more.

suppose now in poloniex the BTS price is 0.81CNY, in DEX it is 0.84CNY, highest in all the source, which price should be adopted as price?

if we need to be more friendly to longers, obviously 0.84 is the answer, if shorters think this unfair, OK, come to DEX and make the price down by selling.

yes, we need more money to come, eagerly, but at first we have to optimize the top design and the business logic continually, if the logic is always more friendly to shorters,  what new money dare to come?

[abit]

Suggestion was not for core to use MAX of price feeds...core would still use median...suggestion was for individual pricefeeds to take the max between CEXs and DEX...

The more I think about, the more merits I can find in this approach. Still, I do not think we can weight DEX and CEX equally, we should stick with *VOLUME* and than it is no different than
considering the DEX as much an exchange as any other too, from point of view of the feed produer

Firstly, a note, volume can be faked.

As of writing, among all CEXs, Poloniex's BTS/BTC market has the best market depth (which IMHO is liquidity), around 2M BTS on each side (aka walls) near the center.

Depth of all other CEXs are far less, for example, ZB.com's BTS/USDT market has only 200K BTS on the book near the center.

However, according to CoinMarketCap (https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/#markets), Poloniex only produced 2% of total volume, while ZB produced more than 20%, not to mention that LBank has even less BTS on the book but generated more total volume.

Another metrics is total BTS hold in their wallets, which should be somehow positively correlated to volume. From https://cryptofresh.com/ballots, we can see Poloniex has 187M BTS in their wallet and generated 3M daily volume, ZB has around 45M and generated around 20M daily volume. LBank? I don't even know which account is theirs. I guess I'll change my price feed script to weight price by this metrics.

I'd say price on Poloniex is realer than ZB or LBank. With deeper depth on the book, it's harder to push the price up or down.

However, who knows whether the amounts on the book are real? The big walls could be (and likely are) set by one person, in this case he can cancel it at any time and push the price towards any direction when he wants.

To get a stabler price, we need to make market, say, put up real buy and sell walls on the centralized exchanges. Anyway, there are many risks involved if to do so.

Another option is to make market in the DEX. We have OpenLedger, Gdex, CryptoBridge and etc are actually same as CEXs, we can put up walls there, produce volumes there. No, don't count in bitAssets markets, they're derivatives, their value need to be calculated out thus hard to be used directly.

[Thul3]

Can anyone explain to me why the urgent need to modify the feed price in favour of DEX if
bitcrab and everyone else can use now target CR and the so called margin call problem should be solved now ?

Or is it to stengthen future buy walls ?



Seriously explain it to us please as it looks for most people you trying to implement something which is not needed anymore for the claimed attacks.

Please provide transparancy



Also if you think a step further creating a higher BTS price via price manipulation on DEX than CEX which bitcrab is planing will lead that people will take these bitassets for selling BTS buy Assets they can trade on CEX like EOS,BTC,ETH etc which DEX is already leaking to sell it on CEX and buy back cheap BTS there.

So manipulating the price bitcrab is trying will only lead of a bigger liquidity issue of assets like EOS,BTC,ETH etc for a higher BTS price.

Is that really the goal of DEX?

I highly doubt that as this can be only solved via adoption and not via price manipulation

[binggo]

Still you didn't answered why you don't say it directly that DEX is going to dictate the price feed ?
Why do you use the term "highest one" ?

Name it by the name DEX one.

no need discuss with you 

[xeroc]

Suggestion was not for core to use MAX of price feeds...core would still use median...suggestion was for individual pricefeeds to take the max between CEXs and DEX...

The more I think about, the more merits I can find in this approach. Still, I do not think we can weight DEX and CEX equally, we should stick with *VOLUME* and than it is no different than
considering the DEX as much an exchange as any other too, from point of view of the feed produer

[clockwork]

I think this is a problem that price feed scripts should address, rather than proposing to somehow change from median(price feeds) to max(price feeds) within the bitshares core.

If price feed publisher's scripts are overly reliant on BTC:BTS prices then they should be upgraded to sample multiple exchanges, accounting for trading volume (flagging suspected centralized manipulation) and sampling from many more alternative trading pairs such as USDT, ETH, mutliple internal bitshares market references (feed|market)..

With Max, if a single price feed publisher publishes 1000000 (or some other very high feed) then it would cause global settlement, where as median price feed would have been more secure from such an outlier price feed.

Suggestion was not for core to use MAX of price feeds...core would still use median...suggestion was for individual pricefeeds to take the max between CEXs and DEX...

[Thul3]

Still you didn't answered why you don't say it directly that DEX is going to dictate the price feed ?
Why do you use the term "highest one" ?

Name it by the name DEX one.

[binggo]

Why don't you say it directly that feed price is going to be dictated from DEX ?

you know nothing and did not want to find the root problem, just shouting again and again like a boy , no need discuss with you.

[Thul3]

I cannot believe that the current price of BTS is a result of just a one-time exploitation. The best way how to prevent manipulation is to make it very expensive by providing value to customers. In this case it could be achieved by updating debt positions to high enough CR.

Fully agree on that

I completely agree - experiments are important but need to be discussed properly and transparently.

Also fully agree on that

I agree, I see no reason why not to include volume-weighted DEX price into feed.

There it depends on the weight of DEX price on price feeds.
As we know DEX is going to keep creating heavy buy walls which have nothing to do with free market trading but with interference.
So DEX needs a control mechanism to make it impossible to massivly manipulate the BTS price up or down using the RP funds and buy walls.
Last buy walls were eaten thanks to the price feed mechanism which worked perfectly against a try of market manipulation.

The movements in the last days, shouldn't be take as arguments to modify the smart coin parameters (feeds).

Agree

Those that sold their BTS on CEX to buy from margin calls on another exchange (DEX) is *business as usual*. Could have well been caused by arbitrators instead of feed producers.

Agree

But, price feeds are supposed to be volumen weighted.

Normaly i would agree on that if there would be no internal interference on DEX like massiv unnatural buy walls.
In my opinion it would use/abuse the high volume on DEX to increase the power of buy walls creating not an adequate price on current market conditions

and I don't think "sell BTS in CEX and then buy from the margin called positions" can be regarded as "usual business"

why not ?If you would update your CR properly there would be no issue.
Its also a great weapon against your try to create a fake price protecting your margin calls using community funds.

it is needed to update the rule to remove the chance for such kind of exploitation by shorting, otherwise, Bitshares will never grow up or be able to provide amazing smartcoin services.

Why do you transfer your own responsability of an adequate CR to shorteners making profit on people who get margin calls ?
Bitshares ecosystem is created this way so people get a benefit buying margin called assets by getting it up to 10% cheaper.

The fault is clearly at the person who gets margin called and not because of price feeds or shorteners.

The feed price need "the highest one",

Why don't you say it directly that feed price is going to be dictated from DEX ?

[binggo]

support.

The feed price need "the highest one", but still need the feed price of the Centralized Exchange and need the witnesses get the right feed price from the magicwallet.

The volume-weighted DEX price into feed is not the key point, everyone can find the reason from the Centralized Exchange.

[R]

I think this is a problem that price feed scripts should address, rather than proposing to somehow change from median(price feeds) to max(price feeds) within the bitshares core.

If price feed publisher's scripts are overly reliant on BTC:BTS prices then they should be upgraded to sample multiple exchanges, accounting for trading volume (flagging suspected centralized manipulation) and sampling from many more alternative trading pairs such as USDT, ETH, mutliple internal bitshares market references (feed|market)..

With Max, if a single price feed publisher publishes 1000000 (or some other very high feed) then it would cause global settlement, where as median price feed would have been more secure from such an outlier price feed.

[paliboy]

I don't think so, it is just the result of one exploitation

How come you think its based on one exploitation?
Even if it would be based on one exploitation wouldn't it be fixed if these people would just adjust their CR correctly to not cause such an exploitation ?

I cannot believe that the current price of BTS is a result of just a one-time exploitation. The best way how to prevent manipulation is to make it very expensive by providing value to customers. In this case it could be achieved by updating debt positions to high enough CR.

Also sure (at least to me) is that price feeds need to grow and be taken more seriously as markets mature. Witnesses need to take their responsibility serious and keep up with market price.

...

Additionaly, I refrain from acting *quickly* out of markets behaving unexpected. The movements in the last days, shouldn't be take as arguments to modify the smart coin parameters (feeds).
There is a much bigger picture to bitCNY and that is long-term predictability.

Those that sold their BTS on CEX to buy from margin calls on another exchange (DEX) is *business as usual*. Could have well been caused by arbitrators instead of feed producers.

That said, I am not totally against experimentation - but I would rather see small steps and proper discussion before implementation.
Do we understand all the implications of "raising" the price "artificially"?

I completely agree - experiments are important but need to be discussed properly and transparently.

But, price feeds are supposed to be volumen weighted.

...
One way of doing so would be to have BTS listed on more exchanges and do our best to increase volumen on *any exchange* (including the DEX). The internal trading price could be fed back (volume weighted) into the price feed calculation as well.

I agree, I see no reason why not to include volume-weighted DEX price into feed.

[Thul3]

there is a bigger short of bitUSD than bitcny

[ebit]

We need more cheaper bitcny in China exchange.

[xeroc]

But, price feeds are supposed to be volumen weighted.

An alternative solution to 'raising' the price would be to use a moving average for the price feeds so that CEX markets can recover and that would have less of an impact on the feed price.

That would on the one hand side result in the feed price having more inertia and behave more sluggish, and on the other hand result in margin calls to be triggered "later".
This way, temporary dips in the CEX markets would not result in the feed price moving as much. However, margin calls are then also coming later, but then would come more
heavy to the price feeds.

Either way, I still think we should rather make feed prices reflect the price of BTS more fairly than to artifically tune it to our liking.
One way of doing so would be to have BTS listed on more exchanges and do our best to increase volumen on *any exchange* (including the DEX). The internal trading price could be fed back (volume weighted) into the price feed calculation as well.

Again, the big question to ask ourselves is "what is a fair price". And I do not think that there is an easy answer to that. we can only try make it more obvious what the "market thinks" a "fair price" would be.

IMHO

[Thul3]

if the price in DEX is the highest in all the markets, it, not the lower price in centralized exchagne, should be adopted as the feed price. 

So you would strengthen your buy wall on DEX ?Am i right ?

does the current BTS price, 0.87 CNY reflect the real value of BTS?

Does the majority of prices of coins currently reflect the value of the coin ?I doubt so

I don't think so, it is just the result of one exploitation

How come you think its based on one exploitation?
Even if it would be based on one exploitation wouldn't it be fixed if these people would just adjust their CR correctly to not cause such an exploitation ?

[bitcrab]

Interesting - for sure.
Also sure (at least to me) is that price feeds need to grow and be taken more seriously as markets mature. Witnesses need to take their responsibility serious and keep up with market price.

We had quite some discussion also with @alt/@bazozi about what a "fair" price for CNY/USD/BTS actually is and I do not think it is possible to come to a *single* price that reflects the BTS price
properly taking into account all the markets and market sentiments in different countries. That is why markets require arbitrators - yet some markets have an offset even on centralized exchanges.

We need to start discussing whether bitCNY is supposed to be worth 1CNY given that it is a digital representative that can be spend easily around the globe, that comes with a 'benefit' over regular fiat CNY (same for USD etc...)
Additionaly, I refrain from acting *quickly* out of markets behaving unexpected. The movements in the last days, shouldn't be take as arguments to modify the smart coin parameters (feeds).
There is a much bigger picture to bitCNY and that is long-term predictability.

Those that sold their BTS on CEX to buy from margin calls on another exchange (DEX) is *business as usual*. Could have well been caused by arbitrators instead of feed producers.

That said, I am not totally against experimentation - but I would rather see small steps and proper discussion before implementation.
Do we understand all the implications of "raising" the price "artificially"?

yesterday is not the first time that we experience such kind of tragedy,  and I don't think "sell BTS in CEX and then buy from the margin called positions" can be regarded as "usual business". the point is, the margin call is created by the selling activity in CEX, this is exploitation with clear purpose, not usual arbitration.

from the perspective of Bitshares ecosystem, it is needed to update the rule to remove the chance for such kind of exploitation by shorting, otherwise, Bitshares will never grow up or be able to provide amazing smartcoin services.

does the current BTS price, 0.87 CNY reflect the real value of BTS? I don't think so, it is just the result of one exploitation, if the rules can be optimized to fix the flaw, BTS can stand in another level.

[xeroc]

Interesting - for sure.
Also sure (at least to me) is that price feeds need to grow and be taken more seriously as markets mature. Witnesses need to take their responsibility serious and keep up with market price.

We had quite some discussion also with @alt/@bazozi about what a "fair" price for CNY/USD/BTS actually is and I do not think it is possible to come to a *single* price that reflects the BTS price
properly taking into account all the markets and market sentiments in different countries. That is why markets require arbitrators - yet some markets have an offset even on centralized exchanges.

We need to start discussing whether bitCNY is supposed to be worth 1CNY given that it is a digital representative that can be spend easily around the globe, that comes with a 'benefit' over regular fiat CNY (same for USD etc...)
Additionaly, I refrain from acting *quickly* out of markets behaving unexpected. The movements in the last days, shouldn't be take as arguments to modify the smart coin parameters (feeds).
There is a much bigger picture to bitCNY and that is long-term predictability.

Those that sold their BTS on CEX to buy from margin calls on another exchange (DEX) is *business as usual*. Could have well been caused by arbitrators instead of feed producers.

That said, I am not totally against experimentation - but I would rather see small steps and proper discussion before implementation.
Do we understand all the implications of "raising" the price "artificially"?

[bitcrab]

the max price algorithm is for "BTS price", so if apply, should be applied to ALL smart coins. otherwise there should be enough gap (for price feed) between CNY and other smart coins. 

if apply to CNY only, will make bitCNY much cheaper according to real currencies.

feed price is not necessarily the trading price in DEX.

take one extreme example, while the price is 1CNY, in some exchange the price suddenly go up to 1.2 and make the feed price change to 1.2, what will happen?

traders will arbitrage immediately and make the price down.

if one exchange is separated with other exchanges and traders cannot arbitrage with it, it should be removed from the feeding price source.

this suggestion is to avoid the scenario that shorters can manipulate the price easily, not to make the feed price false, at least, if the price in DEX is the highest in all the markets, it, not the lower price in centralized exchagne, should be adopted as the feed price. 

[pluswave]

the max price algorithm is for "BTS price", so if apply, should be applied to ALL smart coins. otherwise there should be enough gap (for price feed) between CNY and other smart coins. 

if apply to CNY only, will make bitCNY much cheaper according to real currencies.

[Thul3]

@ebit why did you approved creating assets on commitee account when Ratio was so low  ?
Shouldn't you be the one holding the terms of WP up ?

[ebit]

应该是外盘取平均，与内盘取最大，看内盘深度，如果到达某个理想深度，就取消外盘喂价

这样也可以，核心就是让暴力砸盘拉低喂价吃尸体的做法不再行得通。

这个太激进，不适合bitcny，可以拿bitjpy测试。

[bitcrab]

应该是外盘取平均，与内盘取最大，看内盘深度，如果到达某个理想深度，就取消外盘喂价

这样也可以，核心就是让暴力砸盘拉低喂价吃尸体的做法不再行得通。

[ebit]

这样的话，假如  取几大交易 所的最高价为喂价， 假如 1为 ZB平台，2为P网，3为钱包内盘，4为 AEX，5为 火币网 6为比特儿.....取这几个大交易量平台的最高价格为 喂价值，如果拉盘只需要找这其中一个平台去拉盘就成了，你其它人或者其它平台有意见的你可以转币过来砸我不让我拉盘拉喂价。  但是如果你想砸盘砸喂价，那么你就需要把这些几个大交易平台的BTS价格都砸低到统一低的价格喂价才会是那个价，要不然其中之一 个平台的价 格没有砸下来，喂价都是取那个最高价为准。这样的结果就是拉盘只需要拉一个，砸盘你就需要砸全部的了。不然你砸的盘没用。

也不会出现这种刻意去拉盘的行为，砸盘把喂价砸下来再去吃尸体，是有超额回报的，你去把单个交易所价格拉上去，从而把喂价带上去，有什么超额回报？无非是给别人套利创造机会。之所以要取最高价，只是为了安全，为了防守。

这个方案只在bitcny上测试，不推广至bitusd 。即使有风险，也是规模可控的。如果恶庄强行拉盘bts到100元，套现bitcny。内盘机器人们也可也跟风操作将套现的bitcny挂买单，一步步实现真拉盘。

[xiangxn]

应该是外盘取平均，与内盘取最大，看内盘深度，如果到达某个理想深度，就取消外盘喂价

[ebit]

support .good idea. let's do it this way.

[bitcrab]

这样的话，假如  取几大交易 所的最高价为喂价， 假如 1为 ZB平台，2为P网，3为钱包内盘，4为 AEX，5为 火币网 6为比特儿.....取这几个大交易量平台的最高价格为 喂价值，如果拉盘只需要找这其中一个平台去拉盘就成了，你其它人或者其它平台有意见的你可以转币过来砸我不让我拉盘拉喂价。  但是如果你想砸盘砸喂价，那么你就需要把这些几个大交易平台的BTS价格都砸低到统一低的价格喂价才会是那个价，要不然其中之一 个平台的价 格没有砸下来，喂价都是取那个最高价为准。这样的结果就是拉盘只需要拉一个，砸盘你就需要砸全部的了。不然你砸的盘没用。

也不会出现这种刻意去拉盘的行为，砸盘把喂价砸下来再去吃尸体，是有超额回报的，你去把单个交易所价格拉上去，从而把喂价带上去，有什么超额回报？无非是给别人套利创造机会。之所以要取最高价，只是为了安全，为了防守。

[lucky]

Support to improve, let BTS can grow up！

[bitcrab]

I am confused.... external price is ALWAYS higher than the internal one (right now we have 0.83 dex market price and 0.87 feed price)

Is the deposit fee higher than 5% which would be required for this to have any effect?

yes, the deposit fee is required here.

[lovegan007]

 这样的话，假如  取几大交易 所的最高价为喂价， 假如 1为 ZB平台，2为P网，3为钱包内盘，4为 AEX，5为 火币网 6为比特儿.....取这几个大交易量平台的最高价格为 喂价值，如果拉盘只需要找这其中一个平台去拉盘就成了，你其它人或者其它平台有意见的你可以转币过来砸我不让我拉盘拉喂价。  但是如果你想砸盘砸喂价，那么你就需要把这些几个大交易平台的BTS价格都砸低到统一低的价格喂价才会是那个价，要不然其中之一 个平台的价 格没有砸下来，喂价都是取那个最高价为准。这样的结果就是拉盘只需要拉一个，砸盘你就需要砸全部的了。不然你砸的盘没用。

[clockwork]

recently there are a lot of price feeding relevant discussion on Chinese community and wechat groups https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26909.0

summarizing the discussion and reviewing what happened in the market these 2 days, I suggest witnesses to adopt a new model for CNY price feeding:

suppose A = BTS price in bitCNY at DEX + bitCNY deposit fee, Bi = BTS price in CNY got from one big external exchanges.

feed max(A,B1,B2...) as the BTS price in CNY.

let me explain why suggest to do so:

there are always shorters who watch the whole market, the dept positions in DEX everyday, and they are clear about the margin called rules in DEX, so when bear comes, they begin their work: sell BTS in big quantity in centralized exchange and lower the fee price and make the big debt position margin called, and they buy the margin called orders to make profits.

surely there should be shorters exist in a healthy market, but it's not good to always encourage shorting and speed up the falling of BTS price in bear market. to cultivate the smartcoin ecosystem, it's necessary to continually optimize the rules to encourage longers and discourage shorters.

the target CR is a very good new feature to do so, but we still need more optimization.

external centralized exchange are not transparent enough, in some market like zb.com, user can borrow BTS and short, and price come from these exchanges are mostly coverted from in BTC to USDT and then CNY, the too long conversion chain involve many uncertain factors.

BTS/bitCNY pair in DEX is the BTS trading pair with highest volume on the earth, and bitCNY has a convenient channel to fiat CNY, so this price can answer exactly in  what a price people can buy/sell BTS in fiat CNY.

sometimes the price in one market can be temporarily lower or higher then other markets, if the finally adopted price  temporarily higher than the actual price, it lead to little problem, but if the finally adopted price is temporarily lower than actual price, it may lead to margin call which should not happen, this is why I suggest to feed max(A, B)

currently the fed price to DEX comes from centralized exchange, it is like the neck of DEX are grabbed by exchanges outside DEX, we should let DEX itself play more important role in price finalizing, let the longers and shorters fight in DEX, not other exchanges.

to be careful, I suggest only try this model in CNY price feeding at first.

I am confused.... external price is ALWAYS higher than the internal one (right now we have 0.83 dex market price and 0.87 feed price)

Is the deposit fee higher than 5% which would be required for this to have any effect?

[Thul3]

A CLEAR NO TO MARKET MANIPULATION

[ymtt]

support

[bitcrab]

recently there are a lot of price feeding relevant discussion on Chinese community and wechat groups https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26909.0

summarizing the discussion and reviewing what happened in the market these 2 days, I suggest witnesses to adopt a new model for CNY price feeding:

suppose A = BTS price in bitCNY at DEX + bitCNY deposit fee, Bi = BTS price in CNY got from one big external exchanges.

feed max(A,B1,B2...) as the BTS price in CNY.

let me explain why suggest to do so:

there are always shorters who watch the whole market, the dept positions in DEX everyday, and they are clear about the margin called rules in DEX, so when bear comes, they begin their work: sell BTS in big quantity in centralized exchange and lower the fee price and make the big debt position margin called, and they buy the margin called orders to make profits.

surely there should be shorters exist in a healthy market, but it's not good to always encourage shorting and speed up the falling of BTS price in bear market. to cultivate the smartcoin ecosystem, it's necessary to continually optimize the rules to encourage longers and discourage shorters.

the target CR is a very good new feature to do so, but we still need more optimization.

external centralized exchange are not transparent enough, in some market like zb.com, user can borrow BTS and short, and price come from these exchanges are mostly coverted from in BTC to USDT and then CNY, the too long conversion chain involve many uncertain factors.

BTS/bitCNY pair in DEX is the BTS trading pair with highest volume on the earth, and bitCNY has a convenient channel to fiat CNY, so this price can answer exactly in  what a price people can buy/sell BTS in fiat CNY.

sometimes the price in one market can be temporarily lower or higher then other markets, if the finally adopted price  temporarily higher than the actual price, it lead to little problem, but if the finally adopted price is temporarily lower than actual price, it may lead to margin call which should not happen, this is why I suggest to feed max(A, B)

currently the fed price to DEX comes from centralized exchange, it is like the neck of DEX are grabbed by exchanges outside DEX, we should let DEX itself play more important role in price finalizing, let the longers and shorters fight in DEX, not other exchanges.

to be careful, I suggest only try this model in CNY price feeding at first.