2020-10-04 EUR and RUBLE force-settment disabled

[binggo]

Reason of margin call in trading practice not only low collateralize but and request owners their assets for withdraw. Brokers use assets of clients for provide it other clients which want use short-operations, but if clients-owners of assets want go away from this broker and broker not have enough free assets - broker can do request back provided assets at shorters. Analogically there is - holders MPA provide VALUE for borrowers, which want use short-operations, and have full right get VALUE back when they want away. They not obligate wait when borrowers gaming in shorts or positions of shorters will be not enough collateralized. And this economic model was there is. MPA holders get assets and use their on such terms, and borrowers give borrow on this terms. Changing terms - changes balance in side preference for borrowers without use opinions MPA-holders.
See, in last day bitRuble lost 10% value. Bitruble-holders provide liquidity - BTS-holders - No. In such situation MPA-holders not have mechanism get provided VALUE back in full volume. Their value was stolen by decision of Abit.

I just get what you want to express is “i want to get the enough and cheap bts from the debtor as i like”.

in last day bitRuble lost 10% value

?

The price of BTS has fallen 10% in the last days! and remember: the MSSR of bitRuble is 1.1 .

You didn't understand the market of Bitasset and just know a little about how it works.

Bitruble-holders provide liquidity - BTS-holders - No.

You can't pick out who is Bitruble holder and BTS holder！

You think bitruble holders provide the liquidity and BTS holders didn't, so go to settlement the bts holders, but don't want and try to settlement the debtor as the debtor provides the liquidity of Bitruble.

You want eggs and want more cheap eggs, then you want to kill the chicken, very clever.

You want liquidity，make a market bot for it.

The system has the duty and obligation to protect the debtor‘s collateral not to be violated when their CR is higher than MCR, this is the first thing and the debtor's right, other's right can't infringe this right.

[akledirs]

Reason of margin call in trading practice not only low collateralize but and request owners their assets for withdraw. Brokers use assets of clients for provide it other clients which want use short-operations, but if clients-owners of assets want go away from this broker and broker not have enough free assets - broker can do request back provided assets at shorters. Analogically there is - holders MPA provide VALUE for borrowers, which want use short-operations, and have full right get VALUE back when they want away. They not obligate wait when borrowers gaming in shorts or positions of shorters will be not enough collateralized. And this economic model was there is. MPA holders get assets and use their on such terms, and borrowers give borrow on this terms. Changing terms - changes balance in side preference for borrowers without use opinions MPA-holders.
See, in last day bitRuble lost 10% value. Bitruble-holders provide liquidity - BTS-holders - No. In such situation MPA-holders not have mechanism get provided VALUE back in full volume. Their value was stolen by decision of Abit.

[binggo]

In trading practice brokers have right margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level. Here also was such rules. Now this rules changed, and changed in 1-side-way for open contracts. Not all MPA-holders may traders - they not must provide higher prices - they clients Bitshares DAC and must get nominal value if want go away from this platform. If abit want to get an asset with different rules - will create a new. Change significant terms on the fly for open and using contacts - very bad practice.

In trading practice brokers have right margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level.

Please tell me, which "trading practice" allow the brokers to "margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level"?
The Antonio have the right to margin call at Shylock in any moment despite collateral level？

The debtor uses MPA to buy bts at 1.0 biteur/bts, so the holder wants to settlement the debtor at 0.1 biteur/bts in any moment despite collateral level?
So tell me why the debtors didn't have the right to settlement the MPA at any moment?

Every MPA holders must recognize there have risk of market liquidity(which is also a risk for the debtor), this is what they must bear, if they want to make the MPA is the price what they think, go to develop it and get a acceptance dealer for it. The debtor had made the enough collateral to ensure the value of MPA, other thing is not the business of debtor.

Not all MPA-holders may traders - they not must provide higher prices - they clients Bitshares DAC and must get nominal value if want go away from this platform.

If they want to go away from the platform，pay it for bts in the market, the debtor was protected by the MCR contract. The holders can't get a fair price of bts in the market, go to f**k the market liquidity, don't f**k the debtor.

The debtor has made the enough collateral to ensure the value of MPA, now the market didn't have enough liquidity to give the fair price of bts, so this is the fault of debtor?

1-side-way for open contracts.

This is not a 1-side-way open contracts, give the enough higher price in the market, then the market will give you what you want.
Don't want to have any lose？make a order and wait the bts price fall.
See, the MPA holders have the choice, they must pay for what they want.

[akledirs]

In trading practice brokers have right margin call at borrowers in any moment despite collateral level. Here also was such rules. Now this rules changed, and changed in 1-side-way for open contracts. Not all MPA-holders may traders - they not must provide higher prices - they clients Bitshares DAC and must get nominal value if want go away from this platform. If abit want to get an asset with different rules - will create a new. Change significant terms on the fly for open and using contacts - very bad practice.

[binggo]

What a fool wiil be buy asset without possibility get collateral on noliquid market?
It's will reason that this assets will be traded with discount at real currency, and holders bitassets will be lost value. Again.
Or use your stack for provide possibility sell this assets on adequate price in BTS/RUBLE and BTS/EUR. Without this - you again kick holders bitassets.
IMHO, your place in prison.

The holders of these assets want to get the bts then they must show their enough higher price in the market!!!

Didn't want to pay the enough cost just want to get the cheap bts from the settlement？

A market without liquidity is not the fault of the mortgager，don't treat the mortgager as a fool！！！

The holders of these assets want to have a liquid market, they must provide the liquidity of these assets in the market!!!

Wanting to sell these assets in these market, show your enough higher price, the mortgager didn't have the obligation to give you the adequate price！！！

The mortgager have the MCR, if their CR is higher than the MCR，no one has the right to get the collateral from them!!!

You can't get enough adequate price of house in the market，then you just want to settlement the others who hold the house?!

There have AMM market of Bitcny/Biteur, Bitcny/Bitruble, go to find them.

[akledirs]

What a fool wiil be buy asset without possibility get collateral on noliquid market?
It's will reason that this assets will be traded with discount at real currency, and holders bitassets will be lost value. Again.
Or use your stack for provide possibility sell this assets on adequate price in BTS/RUBLE and BTS/EUR. Without this - you again kick holders bitassets.
IMHO, your place in prison.

[abit]

Time will tell.

I also think it will increase the circulating supply, but it is not a long term solution for a healthy market. Higher FSO, could also allow bigger discount and higher arbitrage activity.

I've never said it is a long term solution.
Parameters can always be adjusted again as situation changes.

[bench]

Time will tell.

I also think it will increase the circulating supply, but it is not a long term solution for a healthy market. Higher FSO, could also allow bigger discount and higher arbitrage activity.

[abit]

In order to build up more supply, it is now not possible to force-settle EUR or RUBLE.

To build more supply, more liquid BTS, more bitEUR holder and more arbitrage markets are needed. Removing the force settlement right, people are less likely to hold bitEUR.

I got what you said.
Time will tell.

[bench]

In order to build up more supply, it is now not possible to force-settle EUR or RUBLE.

To build more supply, more liquid BTS, more bitEUR holder and more arbitrage markets are needed. Removing the force settlement right, people are less likely to hold bitEUR.

[abit]

In order to build up more supply, it is now not possible to force-settle EUR or RUBLE.

Margin calls still work fine as before.

As of writing, there are 4,364,631 BTS in collateral for bitEUR and 2,057,592 BTS for bitRUBLE. IMHO these two assets have potentials to develop better.