agorise/bsips
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Packages Wiki Activity

Merge pull request #19 from pmconrad/bsip-0017

Browse source 
Bsip 0017, modifications and clarifications
This commit is contained in:
Fabian Schuh 2016-11-13 18:23:17 +01:00 committed by GitHub
commit 208cb314af
1 changed files with 57 additions and 3 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

60
bsip-0017.md
View file

@ -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 are resolved automatically after some time. Because "some time" can be quite
long though, it is better to resolve this in a quicker way. 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 ### limit_order_object
@ -124,9 +124,20 @@ revival none of these exist.
However, calls may exist with SWAN as collateral. Suppose that DUCK is an asset 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. 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. 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. This solution requires further discussion.
### vesting_balance_object ### vesting_balance_object
@ -239,6 +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 modifiable by the committee and defaults to 4 weeks (28 days). See discussion
below. 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 # Discussion
## minimum_time_before_asset_revival ## minimum_time_before_asset_revival
@ -252,7 +287,7 @@ the resolution process that affects them.
## Dependent Assets ## Dependent Assets
As described above, assets may exist that use SWAN as collateral. Short 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. 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 It is reasonable insofar as SWAN effectively represents the value of a fixed
@ -315,3 +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 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 particularly important to understand how the revival of an asset affects the
different parties, i. e. holders, shorters, traders and issuers. 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.