Topic: ICBIT Derivatives Market (USD/BTC futures trading) - LIVE - page 13. (Read 97699 times)

The exact same volume for the last two BTCUSDs?



Here's a summary of the settled contracts:

Dec 15, 2012: BTCUSD-12.12 (BUZ2) Total volume: $500,000, Final settlement: $13.4870
Mar 15, 2013: BTCUSD-3.13 (BUH3) Total volume: $754,550, Final settlement: $47.0764
Apr 14, 2013: BTC/USD-4.13 (BUJ3) Total volume: $754,550, Final settlement: $98.94082

Feb 15, 2013: GOLD-02.13 (GDG3) Total volume: 268 contracts, Final settlement: 65.0314 BTC ($1634.30 USD)
Apr 14, 2013: GOLD-04.13 (GDJ3) Total volume: 119 contracts, Final settlement: 15.23 BTC ($1507.0 USD)

Feb 15, 2013: OIL-02.13 (CLG3) Total volume: 1513 contracts, Final settlement: 3.8709 BTC ($97.28 USD).
Apr 14, 2013: OIL-04.13 (CLJ3) Total volume: 187 contracts, Final settlement: 0.9169 BTC ($90.72)

BUZ2 volume obtained from news release: https://plus.google.com/u/0/117990284188664727142/posts

hi fireball
i ve pmed you

let me know if you can help

thanks

...which brings up again the topic of gold and oil futures.

In the last time those futures were pretty much dead in the water. In case you did hold a position, there was basically just the option to hold until settlement. But we must concede that this situation became similar unfortunate for the BTC/USD futures. Right now, the only market that works is S&P.

On the other hand, the first batch of Gold and especially Oil was really interesting. They were always a bit illiquid, but they had their own specific behaviour and reacted to the movement of Gold and Oil, instead of just reflecting the BTC/USD rate.


Thus my proposal would be maybe to wait some time, until the BTC/USD development is back in a sane region, so that trading any BTC based future makes sense for both parties involved. And then to reconsider adding Gold and Oil again.

Final settlement report for three contracts:

BTC/USD-4.13 (BUJ3)
Settlement price as of 24h volume weighted average price from MtGox: $98.94082
Total volume of the contract: $754550
Open interest by the moment of settlement: 5005

GOLD-4.13 (GDJ3)
Settlement price $1507.0 / $98.94082 = 15.23 BTC
Total volume of the contract: 119 contracts
Open interest by the moment of settlement: 17

OIL-4.13 (CLJ3)
Settlement price $90.72 / $98.94082 = 0.9169 BTC
Total volume of the contract: 187 contracts
Open interest by the moment of settlement: 17

Everyone got paid in full during the final settlement. As the OIL and GOLD contracts show rather low volume, we are not introducing new contracts until more interest in trading them shows up.

Thank you for trading with us and sorry for all the turbulence during the crazy rate rise/fall days.

20:00 UTC clearing will take a bit longer than usual due to contracts expiration.

Hardware maintenance, sorry for downtime.


Bytheway, we are enlarging our infrastructure to include more servers and ultimately provide interruption-less service.

Yes, we were lucky - at least I count myself lucky that my large, long position was largely closed a few days before the crash.  The profit I lost was less than the loss I would have incurred now (I would have been wiped out).

Of course it is not good at all that Fireball changes the rules during the game.  On the other hand, it is probably better than ICBIT just closing with all our funds being lost.  Remember, we all get angry when our profitable position is closed or we are margin called, but how many of us would leave a negative account alone (and perhaps even open a new one), leaving Fireball with the loss. It is likely that our combined wallets at ICBIT exceeds his private funds, and he also has to make an effort at staying solvent.  We have chosen to gamble our bitcoins on an anonymous, unregulated website.  We have to factor that risk into our risk management.  But that being said, Fireball should be more specific in his descriptions about what he is allowed to do in a crisis.

Disclaimer: I am not in any way associated with ICBIT, but I have made significant (by my modest standards at least) profit on the site, which probably gives me a positive bias.  I currently have money on the site that I would withdraw if I could, but I understand and (reluctantly) accept that they are frozen until the dust settles.

It's hard to justify treating someone differently just because they left BTC on the exchange that you can seize.

Moral of the story : if there's any chance you might want out, don't leave excess coins on icbit.

huh? I'd be very happy right now they were closed out. I'm sure they'd be worth a lot less now.

We've had large long positions closed without being fully compensated because the margin was not increased. And yet now he is increasing the margin when it isn't in our favor, this is a clear case of bias on the part of the admin/fireball

It looks like I was right that 'traditional' futures do not work so well with Bitcoin.

I gotta build my own exchange with blackjack and hookers...

Err, I mean with capped forward contracts and no margin calls.

thanks for the forum edit clarification.


Fireball, please, what are the current margin conditions and when will you be performing the next clearance?

No, I can edit only my own posts here and anywhere else on this forum. I'm not a forum moderator.

Hi Fireball,

Thank you for your fast response. Me and my partner are, overall, very happy with our experience on icbit.se. I am continuing in the other thread (since my understanding is that threads can be edited by their owner -- if a third party wants to start a 'neutral' thread i'd be happy to move discussion over there. Either way, I would prefer if we could keep discussion in one central location for clarity and reference.

Basically, I am not understanding how you can freeze accounts and decide that margin requirements are being changed ad hoc? That seems to violate the basic agreements under which we agreed to risk.

An official comment:

With the situation at Mt.Gox, we are unable to manage risks in full as the spot price is basically unknown. Margin requirements were temporary increased, so withdrawal requests which would normally be processed are pending now (because otherwise they may not be able to sustain payout requirements of a BTC/USD-4.13 contract due to settle in a couple of days).

We have to care about both sides of the market, and will gladly reduce margin requirements as soon as the market stabilizes (at least opens).

Hello,

I just posted here: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/icbitse-refusing-to-release-funds-173928

Our margins are covered but icbit admin is currently refusing to release funds. Is anyone else having the same issue?

The fees may be a problem for daytrading, but if you hold a position a few days they will hardly make a scratch in your profit (or loss).

Complete, informative, corner-case covering, correct specifications are not icbit's strength. You'd know that reading this thread.


Given gox-lameness induced volatility icbit is trying hard to retain relevance of its futures that, 60 percent or more of the time, are out of range. That's when they're not closing out positions abruptly.


Given this, I think their fees are outrageous. Their fees are criminal even for an impeccable outfit. But free market and all that, as long as people keep playing they have little reason to change their sloppiness.

He announced recently that he would increase the margin for long positions, looks like that is what happened.  I guess he got tired of paying for short users going bankrupt during the rapid rise, and wanted to avoid the same for long users during the unavoidable crash.  Now the crash has come, and it was not bad at all (only four days of value increase wiped out.  FOUR DAYS, hmm this was not a crash but a minor correction).

Anyway, ICBIT has not really worked during these last crazy weeks, as nobody in their right mind would go short (even if you think it is a bubble, "the market may remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent").  During most of the spring, I suppose the bulls have lived from the arbitrageurs, and the arbitrageurs have profited from the contango the bulls caused (use USD, buy BTC on an exchange, short the same amount of USD on ICBIT, profit: the difference in BTC, same amount in BTC regardless of what happens to the rate).

But the contango went away, either because ICBIT could not move fast enough or because nobody wanted to take the role as arbitrageur - or no-one wanted to pay a large contango and then be forcibly closed.  If things settle now, and this correction cause the price to rise slower (or even fall - was this the signal to "the long slide to 20$" ?) then ICBIT should begin functioning better again.  And to return on topic: then I assume Fireball would reduce the margin requirement, so ICBIT becomes attractive again.  The current margin requirement may be necessary, but it really sucks, and I doubt that I will increase my position under these conditions (not that I have been able to do so when I tried - no-one wanted to sell anyway)

this might be the consequence of the increase in margin requirements, which Fireball anounced just some messages above?