Author Topic: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions  (Read 2426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pc

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1389
    • View Profile
    • Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko?
  • BitShares: cyrano
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #15 on: October 02, 2018, 12:34:56 pm »
Your logic is sound except for one point:
That said, if we want a fixed exchange rate, we need to "break" the promises somehow, or to limit capital movement somehow. This sounds unacceptable for some people, but unfortunately it's the fact.

You don't need to break promises. You don't need to continue making the same promises while you're actively breaking them.

The original design of our SmartCoins favours free capital movement and independent policy over fixed exchange rate.

You prefer fixed exchange rate over independent policy. Fine. You can have that without breaking any promises: create a new type of SmartCoins.

We can remember we were feeding around +15% offset on bitCNY price when the premium was around 3%.

So margin calls were settled at 15% offset? With 10% MSSR you have rewareded shorters with 5% for not providing sufficient collateral. Good job. BitShares was always about +5% right?
Please vote for my BitShares witness "cyrano" and for my STEEM witness "cyrano.witness"!
Bitcoin - Perspektive oder Risiko? ISBN 978-3-8442-6568-2 http://bitcoin.quisquis.de

Online binggo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #16 on: October 02, 2018, 12:48:47 pm »
create more sell orders by BSIP42

I don't think this is a market action,it‘s BSIP 42 action,which create a overflow of collateral by a high feed price and then reduce the feed price to sell these overflow of collateral.

also i don't think the 110%MSSR is a market action, it's disrupted the market too much.

otherwise,the“impossible trinity” is not very suitable for the stablecoins.

and i don't agree the opinion of the force-settlement,the design of the force-settlement is not for getting enough fair price of bts,it is used for warnning the the shorter to keep a safe collateral ratio and protect the safe of the bitassets. It will be very usefull if it have a reasonable rule.

if the force-settlement have a reasonable rule, it will protect the shorter which have a safe collateral ratio. If someone want to get enought bts, he can buy form the market or pay more high price than the maket from the safe collateral ratio, everyone will know how to do.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 01:04:04 pm by binggo »

Offline armin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #17 on: October 02, 2018, 01:06:21 pm »
Your logic is sound except for one point:
That said, if we want a fixed exchange rate, we need to "break" the promises somehow, or to limit capital movement somehow. This sounds unacceptable for some people, but unfortunately it's the fact.

You don't need to break promises. You don't need to continue making the same promises while you're actively breaking them.

The original design of our SmartCoins favours free capital movement and independent policy over fixed exchange rate.

You prefer fixed exchange rate over independent policy. Fine. You can have that without breaking any promises: create a new type of SmartCoins.


The problem with creating a new SmartCoin is the adoption part, network effects are really hard to bootstrap at first. I think that's why theres been this push for changing the existing SmartCoins. Also there's the problem of naming. It's hard to name the new assets without confusing users

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #18 on: October 02, 2018, 01:26:43 pm »
Your logic is sound except for one point:
That said, if we want a fixed exchange rate, we need to "break" the promises somehow, or to limit capital movement somehow. This sounds unacceptable for some people, but unfortunately it's the fact.

You don't need to break promises. You don't need to continue making the same promises while you're actively breaking them.

The original design of our SmartCoins favours free capital movement and independent policy over fixed exchange rate.

You prefer fixed exchange rate over independent policy. Fine. You can have that without breaking any promises: create a new type of SmartCoins.


So we have to agree to disagree here.

While we didn't favor fixed exchange rate, all the promotions about bitAssets are saying they are meant to be pegged, aka meant to have fixed exchange rate, and of course also promoted as collateralized. Perhaps some people already knew it's impossible to have both and left. People who stayed are struggling to find a balance between them, in the end, we have only one product with somehow mismatching rules and expectations.

So the fact is we have only one product, and we want mass adoption. The debate is about what the rule should be in order to gain mass adoption. We do have options:
* create a new product, or
* refine current product.

It's clear that it takes great time and efforts to build recognition and reputation for new products, especially when it competes with the old product, due to lack of first-mover advantage. Yes we *can* create a new product, but IMHO it's not the best approach for the whole community.

Your logic is sound except for one point:
That said, if we want a fixed exchange rate, we need to "break" the promises somehow, or to limit capital movement somehow. This sounds unacceptable for some people, but unfortunately it's the fact.

You don't need to break promises. You don't need to continue making the same promises while you're actively breaking them.

The original design of our SmartCoins favours free capital movement and independent policy over fixed exchange rate.

You prefer fixed exchange rate over independent policy. Fine. You can have that without breaking any promises: create a new type of SmartCoins.


The problem with creating a new SmartCoin is the adoption part, network effects are really hard to bootstrap at first. I think that's why theres been this push for changing the existing SmartCoins. Also there's the problem of naming. It's hard to name the new assets without confusing users

Exactly.

Quote

We can remember we were feeding around +15% offset on bitCNY price when the premium was around 3%.

So margin calls were settled at 15% offset? With 10% MSSR you have rewareded shorters with 5% for not providing sufficient collateral. Good job. BitShares was always about +5% right?

No, margin calls will be filled at par value, of course, if need to fill them to maintain the peg. When there are lots of limit orders selling the collateral asset (BTS) at par value (below feed/MSSR), it means there are sufficient liquidity, why we have to force the borrowers to sell? Buyers don't care they bought from whom, as long as able to buy at desired price (of course volume affects price). When there is no enough liquidity, witnesses will adjust down the feed according to the feedback mechanism, at that time margin calls will be filled, yes, at par value.

It's true that force-settlements will be executed at 15% offset plus +5% fee. So we have this PR https://github.com/bitshares/bitshares-ui/pull/1847 and even the discussion about disabling forced settlement, for better UX.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 01:31:30 pm by abit »
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #19 on: October 02, 2018, 01:38:34 pm »
create more sell orders by BSIP42

I don't think this is a market action,it‘s BSIP 42 action,which create a overflow of collateral by a high feed price and then reduce the feed price to sell these overflow of collateral.

also i don't think the 110%MSSR is a market action, it's disrupted the market too much.

otherwise,the“impossible trinity” is not very suitable for the stablecoins.

and i don't agree the opinion of the force-settlement,the design of the force-settlement is not for getting enough fair price of bts,it is used for warnning the the shorter to keep a safe collateral ratio and protect the safe of the bitassets. It will be very usefull if it have a reasonable rule.

if the force-settlement have a reasonable rule, it will protect the shorter which have a safe collateral ratio. If someone want to get enought bts, he can buy form the market or pay more high price than the maket from the safe collateral ratio, everyone will know how to do.

The old rule essentially says "bitCNY holders can FORCE-SETTLE their bitCNY to BTS at market trading price" (note: volume is limited by system parameters, and there is a fee, and a delay)

BSIP42 essentially says "bitCNY holders can EXCHANGE their bitCNY to BTS at market trading price" (note: price may be impacted by volume, or practically cause a delay)

If there is no sufficient limit order selling BTS, bitCNY borrowers will have to sell collateral anyway, effectively it's no difference.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 01:40:05 pm by abit »
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Online binggo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 458
    • View Profile
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #20 on: October 02, 2018, 02:36:25 pm »
create more sell orders by BSIP42

I don't think this is a market action,it‘s BSIP 42 action,which create a overflow of collateral by a high feed price and then reduce the feed price to sell these overflow of collateral.

also i don't think the 110%MSSR is a market action, it's disrupted the market too much.

otherwise,the“impossible trinity” is not very suitable for the stablecoins.

and i don't agree the opinion of the force-settlement,the design of the force-settlement is not for getting enough fair price of bts,it is used for warnning the the shorter to keep a safe collateral ratio and protect the safe of the bitassets. It will be very usefull if it have a reasonable rule.

if the force-settlement have a reasonable rule, it will protect the shorter which have a safe collateral ratio. If someone want to get enought bts, he can buy form the market or pay more high price than the maket from the safe collateral ratio, everyone will know how to do.

The old rule essentially says "bitCNY holders can FORCE-SETTLE their bitCNY to BTS at market trading price" (note: volume is limited by system parameters, and there is a fee, and a delay)

BSIP42 essentially says "bitCNY holders can EXCHANGE their bitCNY to BTS at market trading price" (note: price may be impacted by volume, or practically cause a delay)

If there is no sufficient limit order selling BTS, bitCNY borrowers will have to sell collateral anyway, effectively it's no difference.

The old rule is not fair and flexible,so i said  if it have a reasonable rule.

BSIP42 is a good method for now(must limited range),but can't be a  long-term project.

no need too much argument for these, Solved through consultation is the best way.

Offline Thom

Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #21 on: October 02, 2018, 04:04:00 pm »
@Jerry, how about the both of us come to a compromise in that we allow the witnesses
to decide how to go forward and whether or not they want to run BSIP42 on bitUSD, or
not. I think, as a proxy, we shouldn't threaten them with the removal of our votes
just because they support(or not support) a BSIP that actually gives the freedom of
choice to them (the witnesses). With that said, I will retract my statement of removing
votes from BSIP2-bitUSD witnesses and would like to keep rational and
constructive discussion like this one going.

There doesn't seem to be a very "fair" perspective on both sides.

The entire design of SmartCoins is at stake here, so we need to get this right. There are aspects of the design that favor one group over another, mainly it favors those going long over shorters. I can certainly understand why traders and those shorting the market want to alter the design, so it gives them an advantage! No mystery there.

I also recognize there is no liquidity without shorters to create the botAssets, so some type of true balance is needed to be discovered.

I will always oppose changes that allow collateral to drop below 100% which risks the collateral of those who maintain it, and which encourages debt building. Debt is what is destroying the world but unfortunately there are too many irresponsible people who think *they* won't get burned when the collapse finally arrives. There are willing to allow their positions to become under collateralized. Too many want a subsidy to from the public trough to pay their fees and don't care about the long term state of the trough and whether it will be there tomorrow.

Verbaltech2 was one of the first "casualties" as Bitcrab and Abit removed their votes in support of my witness when I questioned them about BSIP42. Better than force witnesses to conform to an experimental algorithm would be to ask them to stop feeding the [CNY] price during the experimentation if they are uncertain about the best way to proceed. That would be a less dictatorial, heavy handed way to encourage consensus rather than divide the community.

I like how you phrased your position change xeroc, and appealed to the eastern community not to penalize witnesses and coerce them into supporting BSIP42 prior to seeing info about what was learned from CNY experimentation (not just end result of better peg but how the BSIP42 algorithm achieves that; what tradeoffs were made? (Don't just say, "here use this it works", instead respect us a peers and persuade us with facts and data, don't threaten us when we ask questions or want to understand). Abit says he's not so great at ELI5, but the burden of proof lies with the one making a claim. It's sad to see how quickly people take to voilence when they can't use words effectively.

Xeroc said that as a counter position to proxies pulling their votes for witnesses that want to see the evidence before they alter what they've been doing for the last 3 years.

The nature of SmartCoins is what is at issue here. We need to define a balance between safety and liquidity. It is difficult b/c we don't have a consensus on economic principles. Many don't see the risks involved with debt. Many don't believe they need any collateral b/c they have  an overly high view of their trading skills and they see it as wasted capital tied up, not as what makes the financial system stable and safe for all.

BitShares has been around and around trying to come up with a SmartCoin algorithm that strikes that balance but I fear due to differences in economic principles there will always be a strong tension by one camp or another to change the rules to their advantage. Remember, before the promise of redeem-ability through forced settlement people were creating sock puppet accounts and draining the reserve pool. That problem is no more.

The principle of sufficient collateral is one of the major characteristics of BitShares SmartCoins that separate them from over-leveraged mainstream financial derivative products. You can't have a house of cards debt bubble if your bets are backed by adequate collateral. Reducing collateral requirements may appease shorters and improve liquidity, but at the expense of ecosystem and investor safety.

Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #22 on: October 02, 2018, 05:03:41 pm »
@Thom, IMHO it's not your questioning about the changes that mattered, it's your tone and your attitude that mattered.

We're not afraid of rational/professional questioning on the rules/issues/solutions at all. But you were usually asking with doubt without understanding after I explained again and again, and even turned to question me (personal) but not the issues we're facing, which is not *that* rational/professional. I admit I'm unable to remain calm all the time.

Just like @Thul3, if he politely ask and focus on the issues themselves, rather than keeping attacking bitcrab the person, the issues he brought up would be discussed much deeper and broader. Current situation is, many community members chose to ignore his new posts, no matter whether the posts make sense, because, most of posts made by him in the past were garbage and don't worth reading.

It's hard to build a good conversation environment, but easy to destroy it.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Thom

Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #23 on: October 02, 2018, 08:45:24 pm »
@Thom, IMHO it's not your questioning about the changes that mattered, it's your tone and your attitude that mattered.

We're not afraid of rational/professional questioning on the rules/issues/solutions at all. But you were usually asking with doubt without understanding after I explained again and again, and even turned to question me (personal) but not the issues we're facing, which is not *that* rational/professional. I admit I'm unable to remain calm all the time.

Just like @Thul3, if he politely ask and focus on the issues themselves, rather than keeping attacking bitcrab the person, the issues he brought up would be discussed much deeper and broader. Current situation is, many community members chose to ignore his new posts, no matter whether the posts make sense, because, most of posts made by him in the past were garbage and don't worth reading.

It's hard to build a good conversation environment, but easy to destroy it.

Thank you abit for your comments. I recognize that I too let my emotions color my language more often than it should, and I am trying to do better with that.

This feed situation is stirring up emotions on both sides. I do understand the desire for more liquidity and adoption, but I'm not sure BSIP42 advocates appreciate how important it is to maintain derivatives with at least 100% collateral at all times, or about why there are differences between typical centralized mainstream financial institutions and the BitShares ecosysem. The distinctions are important to understand. Promises should not be made and broken, it introduces distrust and has a negative impact on reputation (as do many other things).

Crypto was created to disrupt corrupt mainstream financial institutions and provide an alternative to them that is based on sound monetary policies. Some think sound policies are debt based Keynesian policies and others believe the Austrian perspective is better. Both can't be right, and it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone can support a Keynesian view with the 100+ years of evidence it doesn't work (except for the oligarchs). Can we all come to consensus that we want more financial freedom not less? Can we all come to consensus we can't replicate a mainstream approach or we will find ourselves right back to the same problems running rampant in mainstream financial institutions?

As I said before, I believe there will always be a tension between traders and savers. It is up to us to establish criteria that both sides can live with. Is that possible? I actually don't know. When force and coercion are the tools used I don't think a consensus is possible. Force is divisive.

We all need to take a step back and be more thoughtful and cooperative to achieve consensus. Attitudes are indeed difficult to smooth out when there are strong disagreements. I have questioned from the start why we can't be more methodical and systematic in our efforts to conduct the BSIP42 experimentation so witnesses would enthusiastically participate. When force and coercion entered the picture it drove a wedge into the community.

As xeroc said, those who oppose BSIP42 do so b/c there is such a huge push to adopt it so fast, without *any* findings published before moving on to try same approach on another asset. Again, without regard to broken smartcoins promise of fair redeem-ability market rate) or that other assets have far less liquidity. 
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 11:05:22 pm by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Thul3

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 90
    • View Profile
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #24 on: October 02, 2018, 08:49:05 pm »
Quote
Just like @Thul3, if he politely ask and focus on the issues themselves

I guess i was more than polite at the beginning asking normal questions but got as response only silence or ignorance as some peoples attitude looked like they don't need to explain anything to the community anymore even they broke heavily a consensus without fearing any restrictions.

You are looking for somebody blameworthy ?
Maybe start looking together with bitcrab in the mirror.

Who was it who broke massivly community consensus on OMO and acted like nothing happened ?
Wasn't it even you who said bitcrab had to contact you how to enable TCR cause he couldn't find it risking that all collateral of the OMO fund would get margin called and that the OMO fund had been running all the time without TCR enabled and thats not acceptable ?
Who created BSIP42 without clear defenitions and without any transparancy to the community ,changing and experimenting in a small group where nobody from the community was informed what is really coming ?
Who said in threads it is only for bitCNY since its a liquid market and later quickly switched to bitUSD without even talking with the community if BSIP42 is a success ?
Who was it who started threatening witnesses with unvoting for not quickly adding new bitusd feed ?
Who banned a witness from a witness telegram channel ?
Who is using spring funds for Voting ?
I could keep going on.

My tone changed after i only recived ignorance ....and if you claim that bitcrab would have talked with me if i were more polite then i'm asking why didn't he responded to any of my concernes before where the tone was polite or emails i sent to him ?

Xeroc already attacked me that i have a personal vendetta against bitcrab which is not true at all but i'm a heavy supporter of bitshares and seeing the massiv change from a decentralised exchange to a centralised planed exchange without any transparency or discussion makes me mad no matter who is responsible for it.
« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 08:50:49 pm by Thul3 »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #25 on: October 02, 2018, 10:59:57 pm »
@Thom, IMHO it's not your questioning about the changes that mattered, it's your tone and your attitude that mattered.

We're not afraid of rational/professional questioning on the rules/issues/solutions at all. But you were usually asking with doubt without understanding after I explained again and again, and even turned to question me (personal) but not the issues we're facing, which is not *that* rational/professional. I admit I'm unable to remain calm all the time.

Just like @Thul3, if he politely ask and focus on the issues themselves, rather than keeping attacking bitcrab the person, the issues he brought up would be discussed much deeper and broader. Current situation is, many community members chose to ignore his new posts, no matter whether the posts make sense, because, most of posts made by him in the past were garbage and don't worth reading.

It's hard to build a good conversation environment, but easy to destroy it.

Thank you abit for your comments. I recognize that I too let my emotions color my language more often than it should, and I am trying to do better with that.

This feed situation is stirring up emotions on both sides. I do understand the desire for more liquidity and adoption, but I'm not sure BSIP42 advocates appreciate how important it is to maintain derivatives with at least 100% collateral at all times, or about why there are differences between typical centralized mainstream financial institutions and the BitShares ecosysem. The distinctions are important to understand. Promises should not be made and broken, it introduces distrust and has a negative impact on reputation (as do many other things).

We can say the promises were made by BM. Then BM left. We have to make our own decisions. According to the analysis I made earlier in this thread (please read), some of the promises were too heavy, we're unable to keep all of them. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want the 10M bitUSD in your wallet be fully backed, but in case when BTS market cap dropped to below 10M, they're simply unable to be fully backed if you, as a holder, do nothing other than hold.

Changing strategy is hard, but when it's needed, we have to do so, otherwise there is no future. I'm well aware of the risks.

Quote

Crypto was created to disrupt corrupt mainstream financial institutions and provide an alternative to them that is based on sound monetary policies. Some think sound policies are debt based Keynesian policies and others believe the Austrian perspective is better. Both can't be right, and it is very difficult for me to understand how anyone can support a Keynesian view with the 100+ years of evidence it doesn't work (except for the oligarchs). Can we all come to consensus that we want more financial freedom not less? Can we all come to consensus we can't replicate a mainstream approach or we will find ourselves right back to the same problems running rampant in mainstream financial institutions?

As I said before, I believe there will always be a tension between traders and savers. It is up to us to establish criteria that both sides can live with. Is that possible? I actually don't know. When force and coercion are the tools used I don't think a consensus is possible. Force is decisive.

We all need to take a step back and be more thoughtful and cooperative to achieve consensus. Attitudes are indeed difficult to smooth out when there are strong disagreements. I have questioned from the start why we can't be more methodical and systematic in our efforts to conduct the BSIP42 experimentation so witnesses would enthusiastically participate. When force and coercion entered the picture it drove a wedge into the community.

As xeroc said, those who oppose BSIP42 do so b/c there is such a huge push to adopt it so fast, without *any* findings published before moving on to try same approach on another asset. Again, without regard to broken smartcoins promise of fair redeem-ability market rate) or that other assets have far less liquidity.

Witnesses are paid positions, meant to contribute. Witnesses (read: including you) are the nearest to price data because they produce price feeds, and data is all over there, just need some time/efforts to collect them and summarize and show them to people who asks. Keep asking others to report the result/findings IMHO is not very good behavior.

If want the process to be more methodical and systematic, please propose the methods and see whether others will follow or convince them. There is a 30+page thread (and other threads) in Chinese forum shows how the algorithm is evolving: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26315.0 , a translator would help.

Actually some "findings" were posted, perhaps not in your favorite format:
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26966.msg322398#msg322398
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27170.msg322352#msg322352
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26315.msg322288#msg322288
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27203.msg322834#msg322834

Some data sources (please research what data sources are trustworthy and how to extract useful data from them):
* https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitcny/
* https://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/bitshares/
* https://wallet.bitshares.org/#/market/BTS_CNY
* https://www.aex.com/page/trade.html?mk_type=CNC&trade_coin_name=BTS
* https://www.aex.com/page/trade.html?mk_type=CNC&trade_coin_name=BITCNY
* magicwallet API https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26122.0

About redeem-ability:

create more sell orders by BSIP42

I don't think this is a market action,it‘s BSIP 42 action,which create a overflow of collateral by a high feed price and then reduce the feed price to sell these overflow of collateral.

also i don't think the 110%MSSR is a market action, it's disrupted the market too much.

otherwise,the“impossible trinity” is not very suitable for the stablecoins.

and i don't agree the opinion of the force-settlement,the design of the force-settlement is not for getting enough fair price of bts,it is used for warnning the the shorter to keep a safe collateral ratio and protect the safe of the bitassets. It will be very usefull if it have a reasonable rule.

if the force-settlement have a reasonable rule, it will protect the shorter which have a safe collateral ratio. If someone want to get enought bts, he can buy form the market or pay more high price than the maket from the safe collateral ratio, everyone will know how to do.

The old rule essentially says "bitCNY holders can FORCE-SETTLE their bitCNY to BTS at market trading price" (note: volume is limited by system parameters, and there is a fee, and a delay)

BSIP42 essentially says "bitCNY holders can EXCHANGE their bitCNY to BTS at market trading price" (note: price may be impacted by volume, or practically cause a delay)

If there is no sufficient limit order selling BTS, bitCNY borrowers will have to sell collateral anyway, effectively it's no difference.

« Last Edit: October 02, 2018, 11:01:53 pm by abit »
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 3354
    • View Profile
    • Steemit Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #26 on: October 02, 2018, 11:40:31 pm »
Quote
Just like @Thul3, if he politely ask and focus on the issues themselves

I guess i was more than polite at the beginning asking normal questions but got as response only silence or ignorance as some peoples attitude looked like they don't need to explain anything to the community anymore even they broke heavily a consensus without fearing any restrictions.

You are looking for somebody blameworthy ?
Maybe start looking together with bitcrab in the mirror.

Who was it who broke massivly community consensus on OMO and acted like nothing happened ?
Wasn't it even you who said bitcrab had to contact you how to enable TCR cause he couldn't find it risking that all collateral of the OMO fund would get margin called and that the OMO fund had been running all the time without TCR enabled and thats not acceptable ?
Who created BSIP42 without clear defenitions and without any transparancy to the community ,changing and experimenting in a small group where nobody from the community was informed what is really coming ?
Who said in threads it is only for bitCNY since its a liquid market and later quickly switched to bitUSD without even talking with the community if BSIP42 is a success ?
Who was it who started threatening witnesses with unvoting for not quickly adding new bitusd feed ?
Who banned a witness from a witness telegram channel ?
Who is using spring funds for Voting ?
I could keep going on.

My tone changed after i only recived ignorance ....and if you claim that bitcrab would have talked with me if i were more polite then i'm asking why didn't he responded to any of my concernes before where the tone was polite or emails i sent to him ?

Xeroc already attacked me that i have a personal vendetta against bitcrab which is not true at all but i'm a heavy supporter of bitshares and seeing the massiv change from a decentralised exchange to a centralised planed exchange without any transparency or discussion makes me mad no matter who is responsible for it.

I'd say blaming won't get things done. It's counterproductive.

It's natural that human beings make mistakes. They're not god.

I guess your first posts got ignored due to typos or hard-to-understand wording or bad timing. In a forum it's not uncommon. I do see there are replies from bitcrab and others.
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline Thom

Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #27 on: October 03, 2018, 12:35:00 am »
We can say the promises were made by BM. Then BM left. We have to make our own decisions.
It wasn't ONLY BM, we ALL were there, it was a community consensus we all (including you) have been living with for at least 3 years, so it is totally inappropriate to blame the redeem-ability or collateral requirements on BM alone.

According to the analysis I made earlier in this thread (please read), some of the promises were too heavy, we're unable to keep all of them. You can't have your cake and eat it. You want the 10M bitUSD in your wallet be fully backed, but in case when BTS market cap dropped to below 10M, they're simply unable to be fully backed if you, as a holder, do nothing other than hold.

Changing strategy is hard, but when it's needed, we have to do so, otherwise there is no future. I'm well aware of the risks.

I am not sure you do understand the risks. If you do, you're willing to risk others funds in this haphazardly conducted experiment. I do agree if both bears and bulls are promised they can't loose it's a problem. However to some degree that is indeed the situation. One or the other is going to complain there is no balance or it is skewed and needs to be "adjusted". I agree with you in your last sentence, except "they're simply unable to be fully backed if you, as a holder, do nothing other than hold." People that use leverage to trade with are used to the broken, under collateralized mainstream system and thus object to BitShares policies. Sorry, when you come to BitShares it's different for reasons, mostly the safety of funds, and you must maintain your collateral or you will be margin called. We don't need any changes that weaken investors collateral or allows fractional reserves, incentivizes accumulation of debt or skews the market via collusion or manipulation.

If course if a leveraged trader refuses to manage his collateral, well, should know the risks and not do that. It's the trader's responsibility to know the rules of the platform / game. If s/he fails to do so and the market accelerates its downward trend, the loss is on his/her back. It's not proper to blame the ecosystem for not being a mainstream institution. It wasn't intended or designed to be the same. Why can't people understand that? Do they want to repeat the mistakes all over again anew?

Witnesses are paid positions, meant to contribute. Witnesses (read: including you) are the nearest to price data because they produce price feeds, and data is all over there, just need some time/efforts to collect them and summarize and show them to people who asks. Keep asking others to report the result/findings IMHO is not very good behavior.
Why is asking not good behavior? Why is providing a coherent report / summary being avoided so much? Why (as Thul3 comprehensively asked) are the BSIP42 advocates using such coercion and force to change the ecosystem rather than playing by the consensus rules OR make a solid case why they need to be changed that is persuasive enough to gain the consensus sought? Could it possibly be b/c our principles are not aligned? I have to ask, since you said nothing to me about them. Principles are important, do you disagree with that?

If want the process to be more methodical and systematic, please propose the methods and see whether others will follow or convince them. There is a 30+page thread (and other threads) in Chinese forum shows how the algorithm is evolving: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26315.0 , a translator would help.

Actually some "findings" were posted, perhaps not in your favorite format:
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26966.msg322398#msg322398
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27170.msg322352#msg322352
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26315.msg322288#msg322288
* https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27203.msg322834#msg322834
Yes, a translator would help. The language barrier is tough for most of us. However, it isn't the place for BSIP42 opponents to fix the BSIP, it's for the authors of it to make their case with facts and data, and make sure that info is made available widely. The links you provided don't do that IMO. It's far from the data and analysis a financial system needs to make a quality engineering decision. The billions of funds invested deserve much better.

About redeem-ability:
I already acknowledged if inappropriate promises are made to 2 contrary positions it's a problem. You have a different take on how to resolve it than I do. You want promise A to be forgotten and I want promise B to be forgotten or reduced. Both of us want more liquidity, we're just not sure how to get it without upsetting someone.

I also think it's quite interesting that there is almost no talk about why things are the way they are now, no consideration of history. Your reference to BM wasn't analysis to facts to say why his reasoning was [all] wrong, you just used him as a scape goat. I'm not saying he was right, but you didn't show where his reasoning is wrong. WHY is an extremely important question. You may be annoyed by it, but it is essential to have the freedom to ask it and explore alternatives.

If there is indeed an "impossible trinity" of promises to community, it needs to be fixed. The question is which leg of the trinity needs to go? Why not add a 4th leg (as discussed at BitFest to publish an additional adjustment value to apply to market feeds)? We all know how unstable 3 legged chairs are.

I advocate for a position that provides the best balance between bears and bulls. I favor Austrian economic principles over the debt based Keynsian model that uses oligarchs to centrally "manage" an economy which has over a century of demonstrating how poorly that model works to help people live freely.
« Last Edit: October 03, 2018, 01:18:59 am by Thom »
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline Thom

Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #28 on: October 03, 2018, 12:43:20 am »
I'd say blaming won't get things done. It's counterproductive.

It's natural that human beings make mistakes. They're not god.

I agree, blaming won't get things done and yes it's counterproductive. So is not answering questions, and I couldn't help but notice you didn't answer any of his.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere - MLK |  Verbaltech2 Witness Reports: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,23902.0.html

Offline armin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 78
    • View Profile
Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« Reply #29 on: October 03, 2018, 06:06:18 am »

BitShares has been around and around trying to come up with a SmartCoin algorithm that strikes that balance but I fear due to differences in economic principles there will always be a strong tension by one camp or another to change the rules to their advantage. Remember, before the promise of redeem-ability through forced settlement people were creating sock puppet accounts and draining the reserve pool. That problem is no more.


Interesting, I wasn't here back then. Why did people have to make sock accounts to get their collateral back? Were SmartCoins backed by the reserve pool?