Author Topic: [Committee Proposal] Set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2 % to 5%  (Read 14146 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1928
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
This proposal is ridiculous.

every trader is clear that force settlement is the power to keep BTS/bitCNY price close to force settlement price, increasing force settlement offset will definitely lead to higher bitCNY discount. and will give no help to the market.

after implementation of BAIP2, force settlement is playing an important role in BTS liquidation offering. and it create a lot of trading chance for both bitCNY holders and debt position owners.

to avoid making things worse, I hope every committee member follow his own logic and judgment, not to support this proposal.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 07:17:49 pm by bitcrab »

Offline bench

Just accept the fact, people are not interested to hold a broken mpa.

You could also use your BTS to provide a real mpa, like HONEST.Assets.
« Last Edit: February 27, 2020, 03:11:30 pm by bench »
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2374
  • 世间太多瘪犊子
    • View Profile
Proposal 1.10.57536 is created to set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2 % to 5 %.

The proposal will expire in UTC  Mar 3, 2020 16:57.

Committee members, please check and vote!

Why we should set force_settlement_offset of bitCNY from 2 % to 5%?

We must all know what is theory of financial repression!

Force settlement=Exchange Rate Manipulation.

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.

5. 5% offset will maintain until some new mechanism of force settlement is available.
may be:

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:

See also:

Inflation Index:
<Inflation, Unemployment, and Monetary Policy>  by Robert M. Solow, John B. Taylor, Benjamin M. Friedman
<Inflation, Saving and Growth in Developing Economies> by Anthony Thirlwall
<Financial Deepening in Economic Development> by  Edward S. Shaw
<Money and capital in economic development> by Ronald I.Mckinnon

This is the first step.

Second step will be instead of BAIP 2 with EMA which can track the price more quickly.

Third step may be MPLP.


理事会提案 1.10.57536 已创建, 提案内容:bitcny强清补偿从 2% 提高至 5% .

提案到期时间:UTC时间 2020/03/03 16:57




1. 强清补偿对bitasset的折价帮助不大。



2. 一个市场在正常条件下是无法持续维持bts的高溢价状态的,价格会自然回落到市场认可的运行区间。

3. 强清其实是另一种形式的计划经济。


4. DAI与USDE属于bts的复制者,在没有强清机制的情况下却可以“锚”的很健康,我们都需要思考一下。


6. 为什么参数是5%而不是其它参数,因为我们已经使用 5%的强清补偿已经有了相当长的时间,牛小牛大熊小熊好几次(about 11/01/2017-08/08/2019),并没有出现过大的问题(BSIP42除外)。


第二步将使用跟踪价格更快的EMA来代替BAIP 2.



<通货膨胀、失业和货币政策>  by Robert M. Solow, John B. Taylor, Benjamin M. Friedman
<发展中经济体的通货膨胀、储蓄和增长> by Anthony Thirlwall
<经济发展中的金融深化> by  Edward S. Shaw
<经济发展中的货币与资本> by Ronald I.Mckinnon
« Last Edit: February 29, 2020, 09:16:43 pm by binggo »