Author Topic: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism  (Read 2913 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline litepresence

Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2020, 01:30:39 pm »
If you didn't have the ability to resolve the problem of bitcny

You seem to miss the point that bitcny has no problem, it is working perfectly in bitcrab's world:

Issue bitcny to yourself at significant discount... NEVER get margin called on bad debt because the biggest debt holder makes all the rules on debt issuance.   Then just sell it to unsophisticated ignorant "investors" at 1:1 CNY on various scam chinese sites... and lock in his power with leveraged collateral voting on recycled debt and use of exchange cold storage.

bitEUR just isn't a fully functional scam.... yet!

Offline binggo

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2268
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2020, 02:11:30 pm »
The time we locked the feed price is too long,  the first thing what we should do is remove the BSIP76 from bitusd!

« Last Edit: April 17, 2020, 02:14:22 pm by binggo »

Offline bench

Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2020, 04:51:14 pm »
The time we locked the feed price is too long,  the first thing what we should do is remove the BSIP76 from bitusd!

Support!
Be part of the change and vote for the bitshares-vision proxy!

Offline Imm_Ortal

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #18 on: April 17, 2020, 08:31:58 pm »
I couldn't find the poll in the UI.

How should I look for it?

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2020, 03:05:16 am »
The time we locked the feed price is too long,  the first thing what we should do is remove the BSIP76 from bitusd!

surely this is another choice at this moment.

How many users support this and how many are against this?

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #20 on: April 20, 2020, 02:41:14 am »
@bitcrab: please don't try to play with the parameters of bitEUR. Leave it to the westerns. Thanks.

Where are the Westerns? what have they done with bitEUR? how much bitEUR have they supplied? have they tried to connected bitEUR with EURO? do they really care the business development of bitEUR?

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2020, 08:35:52 am »
You care now because somebody invested 5.000.000 collateral who sucked of other peoples debt kicking out many debt holders from biteur and is now the lowest CR on biteur and who has a clear relationship with you.


Taking other peoples debt and kicking them out of debt is not bringing any supply.

You want more supply for biteur.No problem sell your BTS and you will see how quickly it will get eaten.
But instead you take over the debt positions for pure self benefit and nothing more bringing nothing to biteur.
The only think you do is reducing the amount of debt holders getting biteur debt more centralized.

That's all you can do
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 09:21:37 am by Thul3 »

Offline Digital Lucifer

  • Global Moderator
  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 367
  • 13 years of being Slackware abUser
    • View Profile
    • BitShares 3.0
  • BitShares: dls.cipher
  • GitHub: dls-cipher
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2020, 09:32:47 am »
@bitcrab: please don't try to play with the parameters of bitEUR. Leave it to the westerns. Thanks.

Where are the Westerns? what have they done with bitEUR? how much bitEUR have they supplied? have they tried to connected bitEUR with EURO? do they really care the business development of bitEUR?

For both BitUSD and BitEUR to be related to USD and EUR in last 5 years this blockchain was missing proper corporate structure and internal legal department for it (e.g. people hired by holders and paid through worker for 10 years to do just that - legal for blockchain and its needs according to laws and regulations).

Having in mind that within very own beginning bytemaster had wrong concept and knowledge on legal, he launched BitShares 2.0 as DAO but structured as DAC - which in real world is actually quite big legal overstep.

DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization/s) would be structured as non-profit organization and BTS token claimed as Utility. In non-profit organization there would be no shares and % of ownership would be not tradeable/transferable within holders or in any stock sense. Hence the whole idea behind Stichting BBF, that expensive legal opinion letter and no-action letter from SEC. But if anyone knew that we were...

DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Company/ies) who is structured as bunch of for-profit companies operating and sharing responsibilities on the blockchain (how operation as well as legal and financial ones) and hence the type of a company, holders would be actually able to trade the stocks within the company and own them (shares).

BBF coming to all of these conclusions after taking over responsibility on blockchain is finally re-inventing whitepaper and DAC as Decentralized Autonomous Cooperation, where nobody would be having obligations of legal agreements between each other unless they are written in paper and signed by real identities - which worked for fair part of the blockchain while left other half in dark due to inability to satisfy requirements.

Then last year, Ryan R. Fox as US Citizen had smart attempt to translate DAC into new meaning Decentralized Autonomous Community, where there would be no requirements for legal but was also cutting blockchain even shorter to enable itself for any business agreements.


So, point is - no, Westerners who actively participated blockchain activities were too busy fixing a lot of structure, terminology and legal issues just to maintain it in space. Unfortunately to this day there was no legal clearing for making it possible to happen (listings of BitEUR or BitUSD).

Now, since my legal structuring on my own hand will help these missing processes and abilities to show and use stablecoins in the future, I request/ask on behalf of West that bitUSD as representation of western token and fiat stablecoin (where China/Asia has complete zero legal ability to do anything with it publicly or outside China) for 2nd chance that we westerners do it correct way.

If positions of Chinese holders are issue here, they would just need to spend some time on closing them and moving to bitCNY and it would be very acceptable process - since we don't want to damage anyone but just to restore health to certain parts of blockchain that are becoming very important in real world (future cashless society and importance of stablecoins).



Chee®s
Milos (DL) Preocanin
Owner and manager of bitshares.org
Move Institute - RN: 2098555000
Murska Sobota, Slovenia, SI.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2020, 09:52:07 am »
@bitcrab: please don't try to play with the parameters of bitEUR. Leave it to the westerns. Thanks.

Where are the Westerns? what have they done with bitEUR? how much bitEUR have they supplied? have they tried to connected bitEUR with EURO? do they really care the business development of bitEUR?

For both BitUSD and BitEUR to be related to USD and EUR in last 5 years this blockchain was missing proper corporate structure and internal legal department for it (e.g. people hired by holders and paid through worker for 10 years to do just that - legal for blockchain and its needs according to laws and regulations).

Having in mind that within very own beginning bytemaster had wrong concept and knowledge on legal, he launched BitShares 2.0 as DAO but structured as DAC - which in real world is actually quite big legal overstep.

DAO (Decentralized Autonomous Organization/s) would be structured as non-profit organization and BTS token claimed as Utility. In non-profit organization there would be no shares and % of ownership would be not tradeable/transferable within holders or in any stock sense. Hence the whole idea behind Stichting BBF, that expensive legal opinion letter and no-action letter from SEC. But if anyone knew that we were...

DAC (Decentralized Autonomous Company/ies) who is structured as bunch of for-profit companies operating and sharing responsibilities on the blockchain (how operation as well as legal and financial ones) and hence the type of a company, holders would be actually able to trade the stocks within the company and own them (shares).

BBF coming to all of these conclusions after taking over responsibility on blockchain is finally re-inventing whitepaper and DAC as Decentralized Autonomous Cooperation, where nobody would be having obligations of legal agreements between each other unless they are written in paper and signed by real identities - which worked for fair part of the blockchain while left other half in dark due to inability to satisfy requirements.

Then last year, Ryan R. Fox as US Citizen had smart attempt to translate DAC into new meaning Decentralized Autonomous Community, where there would be no requirements for legal but was also cutting blockchain even shorter to enable itself for any business agreements.


So, point is - no, Westerners who actively participated blockchain activities were too busy fixing a lot of structure, terminology and legal issues just to maintain it in space. Unfortunately to this day there was no legal clearing for making it possible to happen (listings of BitEUR or BitUSD).

Now, since my legal structuring on my own hand will help these missing processes and abilities to show and use stablecoins in the future, I request/ask on behalf of West that bitUSD as representation of western token and fiat stablecoin (where China/Asia has complete zero legal ability to do anything with it publicly or outside China) for 2nd chance that we westerners do it correct way.

If positions of Chinese holders are issue here, they would just need to spend some time on closing them and moving to bitCNY and it would be very acceptable process - since we don't want to damage anyone but just to restore health to certain parts of blockchain that are becoming very important in real world (future cashless society and importance of stablecoins).



Chee®s

On behalf of WEST ?Strong words because majority is against it even in west.
Can't see any support from west other than BEOS/BBF/CN-Vote(Bitcrab)
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 09:55:23 am by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2020, 10:41:38 am »
Now, since my legal structuring on my own hand will help these missing processes and abilities to show and use stablecoins in the future, I request/ask on behalf of West that bitUSD as representation of western token and fiat stablecoin (where China/Asia has complete zero legal ability to do anything with it publicly or outside China) for 2nd chance that we westerners do it correct way.

If positions of Chinese holders are issue here, they would just need to spend some time on closing them and moving to bitCNY and it would be very acceptable process - since we don't want to damage anyone but just to restore health to certain parts of blockchain that are becoming very important in real world (future cashless society and importance of stablecoins).

I agree to remove BSIP76 from bitUSD and keep BAIP2, would like to try to lobby China community on this, although it is not easy.
we need to find a roadmap to do this to minimize the hurting to the debt position holders.
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 10:48:28 am by bitcrab »

Offline abit

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 4473
    • View Profile
    • Abit's Hive Blog
  • BitShares: abit
  • GitHub: abitmore
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #25 on: April 20, 2020, 10:42:34 am »
If positions of Chinese holders are issue here, they would just need to spend some time on closing them and moving to bitCNY and it would be very acceptable process - since we don't want to damage anyone but just to restore health to certain parts of blockchain that are becoming very important in real world (future cashless society and importance of stablecoins).

They aren't able to close their positions unless
* majority of bitUSD holders force settle their holdings, and/or
* you found enough money in western to enter positions to replace current borrowers (like what's happening with bitEUR), and/or
* globally settle it (which technically can be done by the committee or witnesses).
BTS account: abit
BTS committee member: abit
BTS witness: in.abit

Offline matle85

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 148
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #26 on: April 20, 2020, 11:20:18 am »
My reading is that the request by DL is that we transition to non-faked price feeds on bitUSD.

I support this - Abit has flagged up the primary challenge. It could be done via a phased transition to real price feed over a period of X weeks?

That would give time for big debt holders to shift their positions over and also maybe create some volatility / speculation opportunities in the market if people expect some improvement in price during the period.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #27 on: April 20, 2020, 11:30:03 am »
My reading is that the request by DL is that we transition to non-faked price feeds on bitUSD.

I support this - Abit has flagged up the primary challenge. It could be done via a phased transition to real price feed over a period of X weeks?

That would give time for big debt holders to shift their positions over and also maybe create some volatility / speculation opportunities in the market if people expect some improvement in price during the period.

That's not logic and unrealstic.
Once chinese would start moving back to bitcny it would mean price of BTS on bitusd would get crashed.
Who is going to sell his USD debt for 0.017 usd/bts when majority bought it arround 0.03 bitusd


@bitcrab why don't you open your company in cambodia or mongolia ...... ?
Any worse country you want to have bitshares legal for western users ?

Chinese even know where Slovenia is ?Or their history of rule of law ?
« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 11:37:58 am by Thul3 »

Offline bitcrab

  • Committee member
  • Hero Member
  • *
  • Posts: 1895
    • View Profile
  • BitShares: bitcrab
  • GitHub: bitcrab
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #28 on: April 20, 2020, 12:26:24 pm »
@bitcrab why don't you open your company in cambodia or mongolia ...... ?
Any worse country you want to have bitshares legal for western users ?

Chinese even know where Slovenia is ?Or their history of rule of law ?

stupid and arrogant guy, I really do not understand why @alt set you as proxy.

Offline Thul3

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 574
    • View Profile
Re: [Poll] BAIP2: Reform on bitEUR feed price mechanism
« Reply #29 on: April 20, 2020, 12:41:11 pm »
@bitcrab why don't you open your company in cambodia or mongolia ...... ?
Any worse country you want to have bitshares legal for western users ?

Chinese even know where Slovenia is ?Or their history of rule of law ?

stupid and arrogant guy, I really do not understand why @alt set you as proxy.
How did you called me before losing ten of millions of BTS from OMO or your faked feed price BSIP ? A dog ?Telling later it was a failed experiment and its better to make these failure than do nothing ?

Maybe because i don't support crap ,inside deals and have a sense of ethic for all groups on bitshares.

Why did you open your company in Singapore which is a global financial hub ,crypto friendly and regulated country and vote at the same time to have legal representative for westerns in Slovenia which is the opposite?

Is this not a legit question on your voting and support behavior?
Why don't you once in your life ask western members what they want when you decide to vote on matters which mainly effects them or at least apply the same standards you used for your own company and chinese community.


Remember your feed bsip which should be only applied to bitcny based on consenus and was later added to bitusd by you with no consent making western mad ?

Seems you want to dictate them your point of view instead letting them go the route the western commuity wants to go.




« Last Edit: April 20, 2020, 01:11:11 pm by Thul3 »