Topic: Vote for Bitcoinica Leverage Change Proposal (Read 4498 times)

I can't wait! maybe you should talk to intersango, this one seems pretty stable and more professionally run.

You ignore the fact that it's highly unlikely that we would've ever gone to $4.6 in the first place if we didn't have the asterisk issue that made it too easy for big players to exploit the situation.

Great! This could be huge! (In a good way!)

It wont be easy, but if you care about the community as a whole, mtgox needs competition, they are getting fat and lazy from your site, and its still a single point of failure..  Your the only one that has the potential volume!

I will launch a poll about that.

Im glad im not the only one that sees this need..

How about you just untie yourself from MtGox.  You've become a dog wagging tail and while I personally find nothing wrong with it, so long as you advertise very clearly your lack of funds when people deposit money (rather than when they attempt to liquidate), if you want to make people here happy, you're going to need to operate more like a dark pool.

I have 10:1 leverage (or at least I did until it got pulled & then I searched the forum for why as I didn't see any explanation where the leverages available on Bitcoinica show), I rarely use though more than 2:1 with plenty of margin to account for just the sort of large price change that's happened & I'm personally fine if peeps want to make those swings using 10:1 leverage or whatever, if it can happen it will & though it's sad to be on the wrong side of these swings (which I have been sometimes) it quickly helps to teach one about leverage, volatility & risk tolerance & one can arrange a very low risk strategy for taking advantage of these - I voted no changes because I like the kinda Wild West anarchy of these relatively early BTC days, once it gets high & stable with large market cap then we will maybe even look back fondly to the Khoutonging era, anyway I don't know enough about Bitcoinica to state for sure that it wouldn't be better to implement these lower limits & if it helps keep Bitcoinica afloat then I'm all for that, whether it can be enforced I doubt but as Khou lost money by it being the way it was then he's every right to adapt the rules of his house in order to keep it profitable, trying to protect newbs & incautious/unlucky players from being Khoutonged is just folly in my opinion & a red herring

I'm glad to see most voters have some sense. This proposal is critical in many ways, it's the only good way to reduce the issue of the Bitcoinica "asterisk". The bigger players have to be limited somehow until Bitcoinica has enough money to back it up. They can always change it back later when they have more reserves.

More than anything this was a learning process for everyone involved. But it was undoubtedly caused by the fact that people had too much information. It wasn't an issue of guessing or having a hunch, everyone knew people went long big time because Bitcoinica's reserves were low. Without this indicator it would've been more difficult and a much bigger risk to do what was done.

I hope this is implemented asap.

I believe the comma is *not* being used as a decimal point in this context. I could be mistaken. It's a good thing the word "billion" doesn't appear here, otherwise we might have to ask if 10^9 or 10^12 is meant 

I think this is great!

I have felt for the last few months that bitcoin has too little market depth in general to justify large margins on large positions.
Resolving positions results in very big swings.

Which begs the question as to why you are offering 10:1 leverage for small accounts under your new proposal? The proposal is a step in the right direction; however given the volatility of Bitcoin I would suggest at most 2.5:1 leverage for everyone regardless of account size. I am not a Bitcoinica customer by the way.

What about it?  Greedy bastards get liquidated, simple as that.  I don't mind the market seizing a little to shake them out, and I trade with low leverage.

What about the greedy bastard variable?

This may help it appear less often, but it can't eliminate it.  I actually like the *, but I love any additional information I can get.

For the record, I disagree.  Personally, my account is set to 10:1, but I rarely go above 3:1, including my BTC margin.  Just because you have "tradable balance" doesn't mean you should trade.

I strongly agree...


Also: While I was trading at 2.5:1 I was only having profits... As soon as I switched to 5:1 ...

+1

Thank you... you're rephrase is 1000x more informative of your opinion and relevant.

I'm fine with this. I check Rails API docs all the time when I code.