Author Topic: How much responsebility does a larger investor have?  (Read 3070 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Do you want to control this situation?

Charge fees from the margin call,then he will  become responsebal for his debt.

What % would you recommend?

maybe 1% first.

Charge fees is not main goal, the insurance fund which build on the fee is the purpose.

The system will increase the risk by the margin call which can't be eaten, so the system must have the insurance fund to decrease this risk.

Where did the insurance fund come from?there is no free lunch,the one who was margin called and then closed the posion in the market,he must pay the system insurance fee.
« Last Edit: August 23, 2019, 09:00:19 am by binggo »

Offline Lara3096

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
The role and influence of institutional investors has grown over time TT Rock Stars.

Offline R

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 841
    • View Profile
Do you want to control this situation?

Charge fees from the margin call,then he will  become responsebal for his debt.

What % would you recommend?

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2367
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Do you want to control this situation?

Charge fees from the margin call,then he will  become responsebal for his debt.

Offline bitstopia2049

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 101
    • View Profile

Should we force a TCR, to limit the impacts of forced margin calls?

https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27733.msg328704#msg328704

This was the high risk/high reward position discussed here

Since the protocol can't control investor motivation it can only provide guardrails..thus optional TCR..

So how do you determine what the minimum non-optional TCR should be for margin accounts that hold more than x% of total debt in circulation?

e.g...

If margin account has > 1% of total bitUSD debt in circulation  >>> default TCR should be > 175%
   >5%    then  185%
  >10%  then   195% 
  >25%  then   225%?         (max?)

or some other sliding scale?

and under what circumstances would the margin account holder be able to override the default TCR if they wanted to partially close out their position using the collateral in the margin account?

Would it be only under low liquidity conditions or at anytime, even during bull market runs?

Online abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4588
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
the correct question is:

so many BTS are being sold with discount, why don't you borrow bitUSD and buy them?
Because the market is illiquid. If I bought them, I'm afraid I would have to sell the bought BTS at even lower price when need to close my position.
BitShares committee member: abit
BitShares witness: in.abit

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1920
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
the correct question is:

so many BTS are being sold with discount, why don't you borrow bitUSD and buy them?
Email:bitcrab@qq.com

Offline startail

We're currently seing a large forced settle on the bitUSD market, currently standing at 22 million BTS. It's with other words a larger investor.

You can easily view that there is one large post of bitUSD margin that has no TCR value, thus the network it settling the whole position on market. You can also easily view that the account in question has enough BTS to raise the margin from ~1.5 to ~3.4.

My question here, how much responsibility should a larger investor with so much BTS have? Especially when they create a large sell wall that could easily be avoided by the same. The margin uses less than half the accounts usable BTS.

Should we force a TCR, to limit the impacts of forced margin calls?