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

[BitBits]

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

[mpellet771]

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

[teyasio]

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. 

[QwertyCore]

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.  

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.

[mjr]

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.

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.

[mjr]

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 ??

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.

[0x3d]

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!

[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 ??

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.

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 ! 

[noggin-scratcher]

so yes, simply removing it still sounds like one of the best ideas floating around.

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™

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.

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.

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.

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.

Allow lenders to cancel provided swaps early[/b] given both parties agree to it (send the lender an email + something like the "Notify"-link for "Approve premature closing of swap")

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).

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?

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.

[wozzek23]

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?

[mjr]

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!

This reminds me of LIBOR, and we all know how that turned out...way too easy to game.

I think the easiest way to find out the correct number is to basically have people vote with their wallets. Markets are meant to be a race to the bottom. What is the absolute minimum that you would offer a swap for? Does someone else want to settle for less? One issue is that it is somewhat one-sided, because there is a pretty high maximum over which traders can't automatically go, but up till that point, a certain portion of them won't even check the rate before opening a position. So, you have an unknown amount of demand, and a lot of people trying to get their swaps taken. It is naturally going to be a competition among people to try and offer the lowest rates.

I have one idea, and I am still thinking it through...I'll let you guys know when I'm ready to share.

[BitBits]

Any thoughts on this?

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.

[0x3d]

so yes, simply removing it still sounds like one of the best ideas floating around.

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™

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.

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.

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.

I was basing this on my (and your somewhat identical) idea of SwapLoad-based rates so yes, it would "logically reduce back to a simple supply/demand market" but not "with no FRR present". It would be a market with only the FRR present (calculated using the average of the votes (NominalSwapRate) times the factor between swap offer and demand (SwapLoad).

I'm under the impression people are switching from trader to lender every now and then so defining the nominal rate using a poll should still maintain some volatility, probably even raise it to the current system. It boils down to your "Which group contains more people", yes, but isn't that some sort of market as well?

And sure the poll shouldn't allow votes of 100000%, it should be limited to a range from 0 to like 5% or so, everything above would be stealing from the traders. Yes, still some magic number involved but I think here's a sensible place to use one.

Oh and the sockpuppet-problem is easily solved by only letting verified accounts vote.

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?

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.

You got that right. Auto-lenders would somewhat die out under those conditions but they're the guys that brought us the FRR-problem in the first place so... well "Fuck those guys" fits perfectly

[noggin-scratcher]

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.

Well that's (cautiously) good news. All this speculation on how to fix it is ending up feeling like trying to put a bandaid on a heart attack...

your somewhat identical) idea of SwapLoad-based rates

I think you have the wrong guy for the SwapLoad thing; my suggestion was to have the rate set itself by reference to trigger events - an hourly check of whether offers taken or offers placed is larger to decide the direction of a small adjustment, and occasional (at most daily) major adjustments if the FRR wall is exhausted or we see FRR swaps fall to a negligible share of swaps taken.

[russianptr]

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.

[2586]

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.

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.

[xeverse]

The latest price value () in the browser titlebar has disappeared.
I use http://pwmt.org/projects/jumanji/ based on libwebkit.
It used to work just fine just a few days ago.
I've had the same issue with uzbl sometime ago.

[J1h2xc]

Does anyone know how exactly Tradable Balance is being calculated, considering latest changes in leveraging?

[mjr]

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.

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.

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.

[mjr]

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. We are doing this in the most cautious way possible, and I am actually usually working on this project, because it is one of our biggest priorities. Just wanted to give you guys a heads up, this upgrade is going to make a lot of the requested features possible, as well as make trades dramatically faster.