Disabling forced settlement seems like a strong response. The value proposition of bitCNY/USD is that they are collateralized with assets. If the user can only get the underlying collateral through margin call (which only happens in periods of stress/when the collateral is at its lowest value) what does that say about the original value proposition?
Looks like you either didn't read my analysis linked above or didn't understand it.
* A trader who really wants to convert his bitUSD to BTS doesn't care where he will get the BTS,
1) the BTS can come from other traders who are selling BTS for bitUSD
2) the BTS can come from bitUSD debt positions who has less than
required collateral ratio (margin calls)
3) the BTS can come from bitUSD debt positions who has
least collateral ratio in the system (force settlements)
The key is liquidity, aka how much BTS are available in the market. Among these options, 1) is organic liquidity, 2) and 3) are "synthetic" liquidity.
BSIP42 or another MCR-based approach aims to provide as much as possible liquidity via 2), while the original design aims to provide liquidity via 3).
Your comment "margin call (which only happens in periods of stress/when the collateral is at its lowest value" is wrong, because, with BSIP42 or another MCR-based approach, margin calls can happen at any time as long as there is more demand of selling bitUSD for BTS than buying bitUSD with BTS.