Topic: [OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading - page 123. (Read 723861 times)

Autorenew swaps, when executed, and in spite of proper selecting the relevant checkbox, do NOT send confirmation email.
NOR such swap, when it closes, will send the notification email.

Hello, let's say i have 10k. I want to place a margin buy at 210 (in case of flash crash) and margin sell at let's say 300. How to do that?

Had to look up who AlphaPoint are... exciting stuff.

Does a backend upgrade mean we can finally be free of the nagging concern that some bug from the old Bitcoinica code might come to light and wreck shit?

Also, is it safe to assume that everything will still be running on Bitfinex' own servers under only their own control? Outsourcing the hosting of it to another company would seem like a mad risk to take.

That is a very interesting statistic...I will look into this, although, it really doesn't hurt anyone to keep it now that it is here.

By the way, guys, the news was finally announced. I know that I told you we were working on something, but we can finally get your opinion. We are upgrading our backend by partnering with AlphaPoint.

Wow, it is pretty bad:

Volume on the last 30 days

• 847490.71 BTC = $286,417,960.35 = 98.73% of total volume
• 912369.1 LTC = $3,417,734.65 = 1.18% of total volume
• 140645.77 DRK = $253,021.74 = 0.09% of total volume

It's even worse considering that they only make 0.1% per trade on LTC and DRK. That comes out to $3,417.73 income in the last 30 days for Litecoin, and (drum roll) $253.01 for Darkcoin. I wonder if they've broken even yet on the cost of integrating it.

any plans to remove Darkcoin? I think that after a few months everyone can see
that this coin is nothing special and the trading volume is really, really low on bitfinex.

Get rid of this coin and concentrate on more interesting products.

That "Just Not Happening™" is what mjr's "guidelines" have left us at but, and I hope I didn't/don't say too much, Raphael seems to be pushing into the direction of getting rid of the FRR which, as a coder, I can completely understand as it'd be the simplest modification technologically but with a huge impact otherwise.

your somewhat identical) idea of SwapLoad-based rates

How did Raphael respond to the idea? Is this a possibility being seriously considered? I've been getting the impression that removing the FRR was Just Not Happening™

I see no incentive to vote honestly unless your vote controls (for lenders) whether your swaps are taken and (for traders) whether you're able to get swaps (which would seem to logically reduce back to a simple supply/demand market with no FRR present). If everyone just picks a number and then the rate is the average of those numbers and everyone gets that rate... then all the lenders will type in "1000000%" and all the traders will type in "0%" (in the same way that when sites show 'average review scores' you can maximise your impact by only ever voting for "0/10" or "10/10") and it will all just amount to "Which group contains more people?"

tl;dr : Any solution based around voting has to be robust against people trying to game the system, not to mention robust against people registering dozens (or thousands) of sock puppet accounts to vote for their side.

Now that is interesting. Am I reading this one correctly; kill the FRR as an actual lending rate, but give traders who want to go full-auto a tickbox saying "Only take swaps that are at a below-average rate"? That could be an effective way to soften (but not eliminate) the downward pressure exerted by the FRR - there would be an incentive to place offers below the calculated rate to gain access to a larger pool of traders willing to take your swap, but not so overwhelming an incentive as "There are 3 million dollars in the way, your swap will never be taken unless you put it below this rate".

That said, it doesn't really offer anything as a solution for the auto-lenders. They're still kinda stuck... but as an active lender I don't have much good will towards that group; their interests are mildly opposed to mine so of course I'm going to advocate for "Fuck those guys" as a plan.

Here is another suggestion to modify the function of FRR:

- FRR is calculated based on currently taken swaps (using whatever formula you think is best) and this value is known to the system at any time.
- Users can place offers at specified by them rate. (we have this one already)
- NEW: Users can set placement of offers automatically (if/when they have funds on their deposit account) at the rate EQUAL to the value of current FRR (perhaps +/- Delta). Note that this would be still a fixed rate offer placement, so there will be no swaps having truly "floating rate" in the system at all (YET, one still will be able to set their lending on "autopilot" and stay "with the market" at the same time)

The way I see it, such proposal is kind of a compromise between complete elimination of FRR function (because the result will be - no floating rate offers in the system, therefore there should be no very thin and very tall "walls" on the order book) and at the same time the system would still HAVE this feature "in play" as it would heavily rely on the current FRR value for "automatic" offer placements.

Had a bit of a discussion with Raphael concerning the FRR and thought I could share my parts of it here:

----
Basing it on volatility would still require some sort of magic number for a base rate, sure I see how that can't be the final or most elegant answer but it's worth considering nonetheless. I also see an apparent floor forming in the swap-market, it's been flat for almost all of 2014 but so was Bitcoin, well more or less. From that perspective there seems to be no problem left to be solved indeed. But then again: whether it's 0.0001% or 0.05%, the FRR is still the artificially fabricated valley we constantly end up in, so yes, simply removing it still sounds like one of the best ideas floating around.
 
But then again, right now the swap-market is designed as a simple "offer and demand"-market but the swap-market is used as "input to some third-party market" so this whole thing can't be as simple as offer and demand, imho it needs some feedback, a sort of synchronization to the market in which it's being used in. Now volatility is just one index one may base this on, volume-weighted volatility or some other crazy construct may be worth an Excel-sheet as well. Apart from that, not too much data to work with and no construct would solve that lingering magic number issue either so this is either a dead-end or you (and us) surrender to the fact that there needs to be some magic number in there somewhere.
 
Would that be so bad after all? Not that I want to convince you of my half-baked idea but banks also pull numbers out of their bottoms for their savings-accounts. Ok, there are some complex calculations behind these but I don't see how that would apply to the swaps as its all being paid by the traders in the first place so basically any number (or a staggered set of numbers depending on the amount) above a standard savings account would be an acceptable one, at least from my point of view. But again, nope, I don't consider this a perfect solution or a free market. If only there were a way to fix any meaningful base-rate. A poll each user can change at will that gets averaged maybe? Traders would pick the lower rates, lenders the higher ones, like a one-sided market basically.
 
Ok, zooming out a bit: the only times it gets frustrating in the swap-market is when you're stuck on FRR or some low rate when there's a rally or when your 1.5% gets closed after 10 minutes. And for traders it gets frustrating when they can't open new positions late in a rally because there are no cheap swaps left. Less of a problem for traders as they can switch swaps at will later whereas lenders won't profit a bit from larger moves in the trade-markets while stuck on FRR or other low fixed rates from a few hours ago. [yes, yes, I'm repeating myself in here]
 
Then what about a combination of two "solutions" that have already been talked about in the forum? Allow lenders to cancel provided swaps early given both parties agree to it (send the lender an email + something like the "Notify"-link for "Approve premature closing of swap") + simply removing the FRR-option entirely for lenders and merely leaving it as a maximum for swap takers (traders on auto-pilot) and as an indicator on the swap- and stats-page?
----

To conclude, like someone did in earlier days: Discuss!