Somebody might enlighten me why BSIP42 on BitUSD ?

[armin]

There seems to be a lot of disagreement because there is no clarity or measure on "how good" or successful the BSIP algorithm is. I have an idea. Why not simulate these BSIPS on the testnet with fake market bots? The results can be sped up by simply making the bots' decision making times faster. Then we have empirical evidence of what the actual effect of the BSIP is, before it actually happens on the mainnet.

[xeroc]

what's  the core idea of the planned new BSIP?  is it "keep feed price the real market price and adjust MCR dynamically"?

exactly. I know this _may_ not be as effective as moving the price feed, but it surely is a "cleaner" solution.

Ok, conflicts of interests are inevitable in this business, but they should not be ever resolved like this. You can do what ever you want with new contracts, but you have to respect old contracts which you already made. You can't change parameters of bit asset which you issued on a wish of your ass, PERIOD.

I do agree with this sentiment. My premise for supporting BSIP42 was to allow the Chinese community to experiment with bitCNY.
Extending that experiment to bitUSD already - with the appponents we have - is problematic.
Ultimately, the committee as well as the proxies are here to support the entirty of BTS holders and I feel that the major is not willing to support BSIP42 for bitUSD

[Thul3]

@bitcrab my i ask why you are pushing change of feedprice without announcment that there will be a change soon ?
You are changing main parameters without even feeling the need to inform the community that this kind of change will accur soon ?

You guys added 30% to the feed price.

@ witnesses Can you explain why you changed the feedprice of bitusd when there is a clearly big resistance on it for bitusd ?
What is the reason you changed the feedprice without consensus of the community and without even informing about such a change ?
Do you even not feel the need to announce such big changes to the community anymore?




Thanks Openledger,Clockwork and Verbaltech for staying strong


2 big Proxies already switched from BSIP42 YES to a NO because of bitcrabs action on BitUSD.

[bitcrab]

Is this why current feed price is 14 usd cents, while the market price is around 11.5 usd cents. Please enlighten me.

yes, as there is still premium for bitUSD, feed priced are increased to lower the premium.

@bitcrab why not lower MCR to lower than 1.75 for bitCNY? Then you can leverage more and lessen the shortage

dynamically adjusting MCR is another way for better pegging, but 1) there's bug 2)MCR are not allowed to be lower than 1 so the effect is limited.

[armin]

@bitcrab why not lower MCR to lower than 1.75 for bitCNY? Then you can leverage more and lessen the shortage

[JohnR]

The market price is independent of the feed price unless bitUSD is 1) being voluntarily settled or 2) in forced settlement (margin call).  There is not a problem with the market price being below the feed price (necessarily).  It's been the stance of the committee (acting on the broad sentiment of the community) that bitUSD should trade within a more narrow range (tighter to 1 USD).  The higher price feed reflects an effort to reach this outcome.   

If you disagree with this then it's a great opportunity to contact your proxy or change proxies if you don't agree with their stated positions.  To that effect, it's a new issue so it is an opportunity to invite proxies to discuss their positions on what's going on.

[lakerta06]

Is this why current feed price is 14 usd cents, while the market price is around 11.5 usd cents. Please enlighten me.

[binggo]

“dynamically adjusting MCR” is not a good way too.

MSSR and Margin call is the main problem.

We can consider to use a quick force settlement function to instead of the margin call, let the market to solve the margin call, not by the system.

or other better scheme.

[bitcrab]

No, this is not me who should create a 'privatized' MPA. A guy, who wants to change a contract terms should do this. When I bought an MPA issued by committee, I signed up for a certain terms (as many other users) and I am not happy when somebody mess them up.

yes, the smartcoin can be seen as a contract signed by different parties, however, it is designed as changable from its born.

committee can directly change some parameters like force settlement offset.

witnesses can publish the MCR and MSSR according to their judgement.

surely the change need strong consensus from the community.

as @abit has mentioned, while drafting BSIP42, the first choice to adjusting MCR dynamically, but because of some technical problem this is not feasible, adjusting feed price is the second choice, it is a little confusing but it works.

I know some users are not happy because of this change, but I believe this change will benefit the whole system.

reviewing what had happened to bitCNY in the past several months can help to think -  because of the big premium and serious shortage, AEX and bigone removed bitCNY as a base trading currency.

it make no sense to say "keep bitUSD unchanged, create another", it is just the committee's responsibility to help the current smartcoins to evolve.

I also hope the big proxies to consider carefully on this issue, BSIP42 is not perfect, but it works, maybe we can consider another solution like fixing the MCR adjusting bug and then switch to the "dynamically adjusting MCR" way, but please let BSIP42 work before we can finish all the needed work to enable dynamic MCR.

[armin]

The problem is many of the parameters are not "locked in" by the code, they can be changed any time

[yvv]

If this is not stopped, this would prove that dpos is a fatally flawed system, which can be easily manipulated just like mtgox.

To be fair, you can avoid these committee issues by creating/using a 'privatized' MPA. Bonus points for transfering asset ownership to null-account for permanent configuration. Under such conditions DPOS has no influence and thus is not flawed.

No, this is not me who should create a 'privatized' MPA. A guy, who wants to change a contract terms should do this. When I bought an MPA issued by committee, I signed up for a certain terms (as many other users) and I am not happy when somebody mess them up.

[R]

If this is not stopped, this would prove that dpos is a fatally flawed system, which can be easily manipulated just like mtgox.

To be fair, you can avoid these committee issues by creating/using a 'privatized' MPA. Bonus points for transfering asset ownership to null-account for permanent configuration. Under such conditions DPOS has no influence and thus is not flawed.

[yvv]

There is a clear conflict of interests here, which some committee members are trying to resolve by brute force in favor of their mercantile interests against of interests of many users, making bullshit excuses like "we want to improve shit blah blah blah... ". Ok, conflicts of interests are inevitable in this business, but they should not be ever resolved like this. You can do what ever you want with new contracts, but you have to respect old contracts which you already made. You can't change parameters of bit asset which you issued on a wish of your ass, PERIOD.

If this is not stopped, this would prove that dpos is a fatally flawed system, which can be easily manipulated just like mtgox.

[JonnyB]

BSIP42 = You can't settle your bit assets for their face value anymore.

[zhangweis]

why r u exiting @zhangweis

bitcny price is about 0.996 CNY(RMB) while the price feed is about 0.816/0.78 ~= 104.6% of the external exchange price and I'm in fear of black swan when a quick fall happens.