Topic: [OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading - page 124. (Read 723861 times)

Not a single number in my "experimental account" on Bitfinex makes any sense. Thus far they are not helpful but I just started a discussion on the topic.

"Base Price" shows an aggregate number that above any BTC price when purchased;
"Margin Balance" does not compute right (BTC amount x last price gives a totally different number, much lower than it should have been) and thusly,
"Net Balance" is not correct.

Has anyone else had similar problem?

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'm definitely coming to the view that if the FRR is going to set its own rates, it's going to involve some magic numbers to avoid the curse of self-reference. So long as it's built around continuous feedback from the market to determine whether rates are too high or too low (see my suggestion using the amount of swaps taken vs offered) it should be functional. I would avoid building anything too complicated; the more variables you add to the function the more likely it is to have a "special moment" when those variables align in an unexpected way.


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.


Interesting idea but I don't see why the trader would ever agree to give up a low-rate swap - and fair play to them, they reserved it at a well timed moment. Both sides being able to cancel at any time would change the arrangement quite fundamentally and I suspect would lead to lenders having to offer lower rates to convince traders to take the risk of having their funding pulled at, what is by definition, likely to be the worst possible time (i.e. when rates are through the roof).


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.

Though "Ebola and a Mass Murderer" is not a suitable analogy, but it is not an "attack" like BitBits asserted, at best it is just not a well reasoned argument as you said it.

I truly understand what you felt when you confronted all of this from your perspective and position, and thanks for having enough patience to communicate with all of us.

As a PR , you have been doing the good job from the beginning, and I think your style making most of us feel comfortable.

But please, don't go back , just keep "MJR style" going ! 

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!

Hmmm...comparing the FRR to Ebola and a Mass Murderer is not what I call a well reasoned argument...I don't really mind it that much, but it definitely doesn't "communicate" the position in a way I would want my position to be communicated.

Thank you! I appreciate that someone else understands what I mean. I am fine with listening to whatever people say, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Not all opinions are equal/valid however. I listen, and I don't mind doing so, but I do not like it when people say "But you didn't do what we said!". That is not how "proposals" or "suggestions" work.

Anyway, I know what to expect on this forum, and I am used to it. I am pleasantly surprised when I see someone say something nice though, so thanks again.

Someone figured out how to do this with the USD.  I think the bug was that you could reserve for less than one hour before you were charged interest.  The person/group would reserve 1-2M and let the rate rise.  Before the hour was up the reserve would be returned and then it started all over again.  It showed itself by 1-2M in swaps being taken and then being dumped back approximately one hour later.  Are you seeing that with the BTC swaps?

Bitfinex fixed this quickly once they were told about it. I doubt it, but maybe they didn't apply the same fix to BTC.  You might want to go directly to support with your concerns.

BTC swaps are getting manipulated, its pretty obvious.  The amount of swaps really getting shorted is probably 50% of the amount being shown.
Someone or a group of people are reserving, but not using.  Most likely to force interest rates much higher.  Up till around a week ago only around 8k was actually being used/reserved.

I have to constantly scan swaps now for cheaper rates so I don't end up getting killed by high rates. 

Hi,
  New to your trading platform and enjoying getting to trade in Bitcoin.

  I have 2 questions:
1. Can you add a color key to the Swaps Demand and Swaps Offers page? I'm not sure why some are darker in color than others
2. When lending Bitcoin, and I've met the minimum to start lending, what is the minimum to add additional swaps?

Thanks.

--Mpellet771

MustMan, you can obviously "urge" whatever pleases you and I am not trying to shut anybody up. I AM too, just COMMUNICATING an opinion.

Hmm, Interesting talking !

All discussions regarding FRR from respectively different sides and angles, seems quarreling and non-constructive if taken at face value, but it still has constructive value in this open offical forum--COMMUNICATING.

So, you can stand on whatever side you like, but you definitively can't use the term "ATTACKS" to describe those who reasonably argue against official views as MJR represents.

So, it is just a matter of communicating , although radical arguing about different views .

If use same argument and logic, May I urge MJR to use that disputable  "Giancarlo style" to treat you ??

Sorry that you "don't get this", but "noone" would force YOU to use this "delta" feature, so you will be just fine and you can continue staying in line, behind the 2 mln wall of FRR offers.
The main point is that "+/- delta" addition cannot possibly make the situation worse. It either does nothing, or it will help to spread the "wall" to some extend and that IS the start.

P.S. BlindMayorBitcorn, so Bitcoin is a "she"? ... I like that.

Hey guys. Please stop shorting Bitcoin. She wants to go up now

Thank you kindly

I don't get this "delta" idea.
Noone would offer his swaps at FRR _plus_ some delta, because it'll be above the usual wall of FRR that will exist at FRR+/-0.
So the only way swap rates would move is downwards continuously.

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.

I think Valve might have prior art... either that or they owe Blizzard a lot of royalties.

I haven't been here for a while and WOW, the FRR discussion has gotten completely out of hand.
Sorry MJR, you have to deal with all "that" and I think you are way too tolerant of these attacks (can't think of a better word to describe it). I guess at least some time you've got to use the "Giancarlo style", because it works in cases like this...

The position of Bitfinex on FRR was clear from the very beginning and you made it even more clear through your replies. I really think that you need to just go ahead with the FRR+/-Delta modification and see what it does. My feeling is that it will be very helpful in reducing the "wall" volume right from the start and the bell shaped swap offers distribution is going to get even wider over time.

I am shocked to see that some people are so desperate to see their feature proposals being incorporated, or else, they'd never let it go. Here is the thing: "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" and there is simply no other way, especially if YOU are NOT representing the opinion of the majority.

Most of the FRR discussion has focused on the USD market.  What should be done about the BTC market?  The rate is mostly very low, but occasionally it spikes very high.

Maybe the BTC FRR market is less important because it is much smaller.  But it could become larger in the future.

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

Soon was invented by Blizzard Entertainment