From ba68bdbc352b319011051b004bbac6071a9305c9 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Conrad Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:17:00 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 1/5] Execute open settlements at black swan, as suggested by xeroc --- bsip-0017.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bsip-0017.md b/bsip-0017.md index dcd6b18..165509b 100644 --- a/bsip-0017.md +++ b/bsip-0017.md @@ -103,7 +103,7 @@ the underlying asset has a settlement_price. For SWAN this is the case, so these are resolved automatically after some time. Because "some time" can be quite long though, it is better to resolve this in a quicker way. -Resolution: cancel them all at the time of the black swan. This is a softfork. +Resolution: execute them all at the time of the black swan. This is a softfork. ### limit_order_object From 207a44bda10eed31c37b81a13ec0495cf0e1cb6b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Conrad Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:18:37 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/5] Added alternate resolution for dependent MPAs --- bsip-0017.md | 13 ++++++++++++- 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bsip-0017.md b/bsip-0017.md index 165509b..307cb46 100644 --- a/bsip-0017.md +++ b/bsip-0017.md @@ -124,9 +124,20 @@ revival none of these exist. However, calls may exist with SWAN as collateral. Suppose that DUCK is an asset that is backed by SWAN. Calls on DUCK cannot be cancelled. -Resolution: Modify DUCK to be backed by BACK instead of SWAN. Modify all DUCK +Resolution 1: Modify DUCK to be backed by BACK instead of SWAN. Modify all DUCK calls accordingly. Remove price feeds from DUCK. +Resolution 2: Force-settle DUCK. This will free up all SWAN used as collateral +for DUCK, i. e. the SWAN will be returned into account_balance objects and +resolved as described below. + +Note that Resolution 2 is only available for MPAs, not for PMs, because PMs +don't have a price feed that can be used to determine the fair value of DUCK vs +SWAN in settlements. + +Also note that Resolution 2 is recursive - if an asset SLUG exists that is +backed by SWAN, SLUG will have to be settled as well. + This solution requires further discussion. ### vesting_balance_object From e07a56a7692e7c7f2383c9d1a3ac9e0f5065eeab Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Conrad Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:20:51 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 3/5] Added global settlement for dependent MPAs --- bsip-0017.md | 24 ++++++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 24 insertions(+) diff --git a/bsip-0017.md b/bsip-0017.md index 307cb46..393f3c8 100644 --- a/bsip-0017.md +++ b/bsip-0017.md @@ -250,6 +250,30 @@ event on an asset and the revival of that same asset. The parameter will be modifiable by the committee and defaults to 4 weeks (28 days). See discussion below. +### Dependent MPAs + +If at the time of global settlement an MPA exists that is backed by the settled +asset, that dependent MPA is also settled. + +Additionally, it will be forbidden to create assets backed by bitAssets that +have a settlement_price. + +The reason for this is that after global settlement the settled asset is no +longer pegged to its "real" counterpart. For example, suppose that an asset +bitGOLD_USD exists that is supposed to represent the value of an amount of gold +and is backed by an amount of bitUSD (which is supposed to be pegged to the +US-Dollar). After bitUSD has suffered a black swan, bitUSD is no longer pegged +to USD. Instead, bitUSD represents a fixed amount of BTS, defined by the +settlement_price. + +Supposedly, the price feed for bitGOLD_USD will continue to follow the gold +price in terms of US-Dollars, which will quickly deviate from the actual worth +of bitGOLD_USD, which is really defined by the BTS price at that time. This will +lead to confusion and anger among market participants. It is therefore +reasonable to put bitGOLD_USD into the same state of limbo as the backing USD. + +This change requires further discussion. + # Discussion ## minimum_time_before_asset_revival From 84993e4825768cb1116d9d8361ef4d4ac5efa913 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Conrad Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:22:17 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 4/5] Extended summary --- bsip-0017.md | 19 +++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 19 insertions(+) diff --git a/bsip-0017.md b/bsip-0017.md index 393f3c8..fc6e02d 100644 --- a/bsip-0017.md +++ b/bsip-0017.md @@ -350,3 +350,22 @@ Not all shareholders need to understand the technical details of the proposal, however, they should be aware of the implications of these changes. It is particularly important to understand how the revival of an asset affects the different parties, i. e. holders, shorters, traders and issuers. + +After an asset SWAN backed an asset BACK has seen global settlement, in order to +revive it all existing SWAN must be destroyed and their owners must receive a +share of the available collateral (BACK). In particular, + +0. At the time of the black swan, all outstanding settlement requests will be + filled, and all MPAs backed by SWAN will receive a global settlement as well. +1. At the time of revival, all open market orders concerning SWAN will be + cancelled (buys and sells). +2. Other MPAs backed by SWAN will be settled as well. +3. Other PMs backed by SWAN will be modified so that they are backed by BACK. +4. Vesting balances, genesis balances and account balances of SWAN will be turned + into respective balances of BACK. +5. Blinded balances of SWAN will receive special treatment so that they can be + withdrawn as BACK. +6. The SWAN fee pool will be zeroed out, and the issuer will receive the + remaining BACK collateral. +7. Finally, SWAN will be put into a state where the issuer can modify parameters + and eventually open it up for general use again. From 4c1d86c58fd767f8104be2e622386d2fb6349759 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Peter Conrad Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2016 17:22:47 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 5/5] Minor clarification --- bsip-0017.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/bsip-0017.md b/bsip-0017.md index fc6e02d..640c4ed 100644 --- a/bsip-0017.md +++ b/bsip-0017.md @@ -287,7 +287,7 @@ the resolution process that affects them. ## Dependent Assets As described above, assets may exist that use SWAN as collateral. Short -positions in such assets must be resolved somehow. The proposed resolution is +positions in such assets must be resolved somehow. The proposed resolution 1 is quite harsh, in that it modifies the asset that uses SWAN as collateral. It is reasonable insofar as SWAN effectively represents the value of a fixed