BAIP5: Set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2% to 5%

[binggo]

5% is too low, let's make new rules:
- Force settlement  100%
- Price feed can never be lower than the last price feed
- if you try to transfer your bitAsset, it will be automatically send it to the issuer
- if you try to sell it, it will also go to the issuer
- if you do nothing with it for 10 days ... well, it will also go to the issuer
- and when you get more bitshares you have to go buy bitAssets before you do anything else...

Don't act like a kid.

[sahkan]

5% is too low, let's make new rules:
- Force settlement  100%
- Price feed can never be lower than the last price feed
- if you try to transfer your bitAsset, it will be automatically send it to the issuer
- if you try to sell it, it will also go to the issuer
- if you do nothing with it for 10 days ... well, it will also go to the issuer
- and when you get more bitshares you have to go buy bitAssets before you do anything else...

[R]

Why would anyone force settle bitCNY whilst the price feeds are actively fraudulent? Seems like a direct attack on all smartcoins to drive users back to the bitasset scam coins, it will fail.

[binggo]

There is a easy fix for your problem. Use real price feeds instead of fake price feeds.

Tell me which is the real price?

and as i said：

The prices fixed or guided by the government was very common in China, but i found it was well received by the foreign friends, especially in force settlement,

NOW, you should understand, amigo, we used the fixed and guided price by the government as our principle from the beginning.

[bench]

There is a easy fix for your problem. Use real price feeds instead of fake price feeds.

[binggo]

Why not accept the fact, no one is interested to hold a broken MPA?

The broken MPA still have the largest user-base and the maximum trad volume in BTS DEX，so this is the fact.

"I don't like your MPA, so i will creat new one HONEST.Assets, peopel will like it as it is HONEST."
So, this is the biggest problem of BTS  for so long，"i don't like it, so i will creat new one : HONEST.Assets,  HONEST2.Assets,  HONEST3.Assets,  HONEST4.Assets, TCNY....."

I don' t think the design of bitasset is successful, we have lost many bitassets in this design, no one want to solve the essential problems，just want to creat new one and think it will be better or just wait for something happend and see what is happening.

So you may know what i say.

[bench]

Why not accept the fact, no one is interested to hold a broken MPA?

[dirnet]

Support

[binggo]

The reason i have said very clearly.

If you didn't understand and just want to say shit, not welcome you.

[litepresence]

bitcny is both pegged to bts and backed by bts...

and you want forced limit orders to be put on the books 5% away from peg? 

gtfo with this bullshit

NO

Why every time I see another proposal from your crew its just another means to accumulate bitasset debt position and NEVER be forced to liquidate no matter the circumstance? 

Why is there this uncanny obsession with accumulating debt in a "market pegged asset" that you've ensured is never pegged to its respective currency?   

Could it be you've found some exploit in the blockchain that you're using to scam the rest of the unknowing masses?


Why don't you just fess up about the REALITY of why you wish to be able to hold MASSIVE short positions but NEVER sell them short?

 

Keep fucking pushing asshole and I'll expose the whole lot of you, cnvote, ZB, MXC, affiliates and the BEOS scam as well to US SEC, China CSRC, European ESMA, Russian FCSMR, and FINRA

You should all be sitting in a concrete box with a steel door for what you're doing to this blockchain; I'm sure there's an alphabet agency that would love to to hear about another blochchain scam to put on their resume.

[binggo]

https://github.com/bitshares/baips/issues/22
BAIP5: Set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2% to 5%

I suggest to set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY to 5%, maybe should incloud bitusd and biteur.

I (or appointed other committee) will  propose a committee proposal to set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY to 5%.

Why we should set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY to 5%?

1. force_settlement_offset didn't have help for bitasset discount;

When a person finished a force settlement, he will make a market order which is a little higher than the market price, he will not chose to dump in the market directly, this is a very simple trade Logic.

2. A market can't maintain high discount under a normal conditon, the price will fall back into the normal price point by the self-regulation of market, currency arbitrage, these will lock the liquidity of bitasset, force the the discount into a normal level.

3. Force settlement is another form of planned economy.

A lower force_settlement_offset is disrupting the market directly, this is a performance of planned economy.
Most of the fund is taking the advantage of the market loopholes to kill the new and normal users, didn't flow into the normal transaction, this is not healthy.
Big holder of bitasset can destroy the market and debtor easily with a fixed and lower force_settlement_offset.
We can check biteur and bitcny.

4. DAI and USDE can "anchor" healthy without force settlement, all we should think about these.
https://oasis.app/trade/market/WETH/DAI
https://www.pizzadex.io/?pair=usdt2usde

5. 5% offset will maintain until some new mechanism of force settlement is available.
may be:
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/160
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/260

6. Why it is 5% not other "parameters", as we have 5% offset for a long time(about 11/01/2017-08/08/2019) , didn't have any big problem.


Related discussion:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32075.0

Interfering factor：
BSIP76：https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/221
BAIP 2： https://github.com/bitshares/baips/issues/4


and i suggest to make BAIP 2 to track the current market price more quickly, but this will be another post.
https://github.com/bitshares/baips/issues/18
https://github.com/bitshares/baips/issues/7
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=32120.15