[OFFICIAL]Bitfinex.com first Bitcoin P2P lending platform for leverage trading

[aumusxou]

Plenty of coins available again to short with below FRR.

I know it isn't BFX's model, but it makes it a very lopsided exchange when the liquidity to short BTC dries up.  Appears BTC were reserved to cause a run up, but over 1K have since been released again (without closing a position from what I see).  Nothing new.

[xhj005275]

It shows the order fully completed but It happened nothing at last, and it shows the order completed on bitcoinwisdom also, what's the matter?

And the status of order history is "canceled no reserve"

http://i58.tinypic.com/24q1gg7.jpg

[aumusxou]

It shows the order fully completed but It happened nothing at last, and it shows the order completed on bitcoinwisdom also, what's the matter?

And the status of order history is "canceled no reserve"

The demand was high there for a while.  It's back to normal and you can short again.
You can even get a higher short now.

[xhj005275]

It shows the order fully completed but It happened nothing at last, and it shows the order completed on bitcoinwisdom also, what's the matter?

And the status of order history is "canceled no reserve"

http://i58.tinypic.com/24q1gg7.jpg

The demand was high there for a while.  It's back to normal and you can short again.
You can even get a higher short now.

Will it happen next time?

[aumusxou]

It shows the order fully completed but It happened nothing at last, and it shows the order completed on bitcoinwisdom also, what's the matter?

And the status of order history is "canceled no reserve"

The demand was high there for a while.  It's back to normal and you can short again.
You can even get a higher short now.

Will it happen next time?

Probably not.
If you're away from the computer, and want to be guaranteed your order will go through, you can reserve margin ahead of time here:  https://www.bitfinex.com/credit/index/btc.

Temporarily running out of reserves can happen on any exchange during high demand times, though it is pretty rare, as I'm sure others here will tell you.  Just reserve, and you're guaranteed a rate and execution.

[xhj005275]

It shows the order fully completed but It happened nothing at last, and it shows the order completed on bitcoinwisdom also, what's the matter?

And the status of order history is "canceled no reserve"

http://i58.tinypic.com/24q1gg7.jpg

The demand was high there for a while.  It's back to normal and you can short again.
You can even get a higher short now.

Will it happen next time?

Probably not.
If you're away from the computer, you won't know if an order went through or not.  You can reserve margin ahead of time here:  https://www.bitfinex.com/credit/index/btc, so that you are guaranteed your order will go through. 

This can happen on any exchange during high demand times, though it is pretty rare, as I'm sure others will tell you.

you mean that there is no reserve to borrow at that time, so I can't complete the order?

[tekke]

Hi, I'm new on the site and I don't know how to use it.

I would like to know if it is possible to create a short order (using margin trade) that would be triggered only if the BTC price fall below 340 , with a stop loss at 350.


Thanks for your help

[noggin-scratcher]

Hi, I'm new on the site and I don't know how to use it.

I would like to know if it is possible to create a short order (using margin trade) that would be triggered only if the BTC price fall below 340 , with a stop loss at 350.


Thanks for your help

So, that would be a margin sell stop with the trigger price set to 340 and an equally sized margin buy stop set at 350. But I'm not sure whether it's possible to set up the orders in advance such that one of them being executed triggers the other one being placed (as you would want here - no sense having the 'stop loss' order in place before the first order has executed).

There's "one cancels the other" orders, but I don't remember there being "one places the other". I think you would have to set up the first stop that enters the short then wait for it to execute before you set up the stop loss. But you can at least add an email notification for the execution of the first order so that you're reminded.

[noggin-scratcher]

So, I keep returning to the FRR problem in my head. Seems pretty clear that "abolish it" isn't really on the table, so... next best thing, make it better. To that end, I'd like to offer up for criticism a simple(ish) model for a self-adjusting rate, not based on an slow-moving average.

Principles/assumptions:

• (1) Ignore fixed-rate swaps, they're set in relation to the FRR, so basing the rate on them is just going to produce incestuously self-referential results
• (2) Also don't try to anticipate demand based on the price of bitcoin, that sounds like a hideously complicated pattern-matching game and is liable to be horrendously glitchy
• (3) Instead try to use supply/demand directly - if the available FRR funds are being taken then the rate should increase, if they aren't then the rate should decrease
• (4) Most of the time only small-scale adjustments are needed to fine-tune the rate to recent activity, but there are occasional major movements that will require major adjustments
• (5) Setting a floating rate without reference to the fixed-rate activity is bound to end up using arbitrary magic numbers, which can be used as parameters to tweak and tune the model - fiddle with the dials and experiment to see what happens and make it work better. Those will be marked out with <angle brackets>

Actual mechanics:

• For small adjustments: <once every hour>, if the sum of funds available at the FRR has increased (more new offers than swaps taken/offers cancelled), decrease the rate by <1%>
• Conversely if the wall has shrunk (more funds taken than the supply of new offers), increase the rate by <1%>
• For large upward adjustments: if the sum of available funds at FRR drops <to zero> then increase the rate by <doubling it> - limit this to happening at most <once per day>
• For large downward adjustments: if the volume of swaps taken at FRR is less than <5%> of the overall swap market over the last <24 hours> then decrease the rate by <25%> - limit this to happening at most <once per day>

The small adjustments should keep the rate orbiting around the point where supply equals demand, or if there's a clear and sustained direction (wall continually draining away slowly or a continually creeping increase) then these changes can add up to produce a moderately sized change per day and a fairly large change across several days.

Then for those times when the small adjustments prove to be insufficient to balance supply/demand, we look for clear signals that the rate needs to be moved significantly.

For the upward direction, I'm looking to eliminate the ever-frustrating situation where the wall is finally gone, stupidly high fixed-rate swaps have been taken... and then funds pop back up at the still-low FRR and stop any continued rise in rates. Exactly how big an increase is needed can be experimented with and possibly ought to depend on where the rate started - doubling from 0.1% seems reasonable in a way that doubling from 0.8% would not... but then, the FRR isn't often at 0.8% and if all the funds were taken despite that high rate than some sort of upward jump would still be justifiable.

For the downward direction, I'm now looking to mitigate the situation where the FRR gets stuck too high and doesn't get taken at all. The "5% of total daily volume" figure is pulled from nowhere and should probably be a different number, but the principle is "If no-one's taking FRR swaps at all, the rate is far too high". Also not sure of the proper size of that adjustment - the obvious mirror image of cutting the rate in half feels like too much, so I went for a change of half that magnitude.

Thoughts on fine tuning the parameters:

• The large-scale adjustments could perhaps be made smoother by reducing the size of the change but allowing them to happen more often. Although with a strong signal that the rate is in the wrong place, you do want the adjustment to be significant - not just a few percent.
• The FRR wall being completely gone might be too high a bar; maybe instead use the size of the wall dropping below some low value (so that one guy with $50 in funds can't stall a much-needed rate increase... not that he'd be able to do so for long if the rate really was too low)
• The size of the small adjustments don't necessarily need to be the same amount for upward and downward movements - seems fair to keep it symmetric but if one turns out to be much more common than the other (maybe the wall tends to slowly shrink and quickly grow or vice versa) then the size of the change should be adjusted to aim for a steady rate. Or possibly the size of the increase/decrease should be linked to how large the change in the size of the wall was.
  

[0x3d]

As I said, just yesterday, we will be announcing the changes to the FRR soon. Thanks for all your input.

soon (adverb, sooner, soonest)
A term invented, patented, copyrighted and trademarked by ButterflyLabs Inc., extending the word's original meaning (see ancient dictionaries for reference) by several months, sometimes years.

Just saying

[teyasio]

As I said, just yesterday, we will be announcing the changes to the FRR soon. Thanks for all your input.

soon (adverb, sooner, soonest)
A term invented, patented, copyrighted and trademarked by ButterflyLabs Inc., extending the word's original meaning (see ancient dictionaries for reference) by several months, sometimes years.

Just saying

Soon was invented by Blizzard Entertainment

[tekke]

Hi, I'm new on the site and I don't know how to use it.

I would like to know if it is possible to create a short order (using margin trade) that would be triggered only if the BTC price fall below 340 , with a stop loss at 350.


Thanks for your help

So, that would be a margin sell stop with the trigger price set to 340 and an equally sized margin buy stop set at 350. But I'm not sure whether it's possible to set up the orders in advance such that one of them being executed triggers the other one being placed (as you would want here - no sense having the 'stop loss' order in place before the first order has executed).

There's "one cancels the other" orders, but I don't remember there being "one places the other". I think you would have to set up the first stop that enters the short then wait for it to execute before you set up the stop loss. But you can at least add an email notification for the execution of the first order so that you're reminded.

Thanks for your help, much appreciated.

[nrd525]

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.

[BitBits]

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.

[noggin-scratcher]

Soon was invented by Blizzard Entertainment

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

[BitBits]

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.

[freakbits]

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.

[BlindMayorBitcorn]

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

Thank you kindly

[BitBits]

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.

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.

[MustMan]

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...

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 ??