Exploiting fee pool of prediction market

[roadscape]

I could also just drain the pool immediately.  The issue is that we don't know how much the PM should cost.  If it is set too high it is possible to drain it.  If it is set too low then those paying fees in this asset pay too much.  I have three different strategies for combating this on three currently running PM's.  on REPGENSIXTEEN I have set the CER to .1BTS/1REPGENSIXTEEN.  Let me know if these fees are too high.  On DEMNOMCLINTON I have set the CER to .4BTS/1DEMNOMCLINTON.  We will have to see if this is drained.  On REPNOMTRUMP I have left the CER at 1BTS/1REPNOMTRUMP, and have drained the fee pool.  Opinions please.

For any asset, the "ideal" CER is around market value.

For binary PMs, the fee pool might not make much sense.

But if REPGENSIXTEEN is trading at 0.2 BTS/ea, that's where you would break even on the fee pool if you set the CER to 0.2. If you set it lower.. at, say 0.1.. then you will have some breathing room and possibly make a profit (assuming you can sell the tokens before they're valued at 0).

IMO.. the easiest solution is to drain the fee pool, get your 2500 BTS back, and don't bother with trying to set the CER and maintaining the pool. (at least at this point in time)

[xeroc]

No idea .. i would think so ..

[monsterer]

Issue is that on creation of an asset, a portion of the fee is moved over to the pool automatically (as a pre-fill) ..

Is that a votable parameter?

[xeroc]

Issue is that on creation of an asset, a portion of the fee is moved over to the pool automatically (as a pre-fill) ..

[monsterer]

If you let it run out, can't users pay in BTS?

sure they can

Then, is the solution not clear?

[xeroc]

If you let it run out, can't users pay in BTS?

sure they can

[monsterer]

If you let it run out, can't users pay in BTS?

[sports-owner]

I could also just drain the pool immediately.  The issue is that we don't know how much the PM should cost.  If it is set too high it is possible to drain it.  If it is set too low then those paying fees in this asset pay too much.  I have three different strategies for combating this on three currently running PM's.  on REPGENSIXTEEN I have set the CER to .1BTS/1REPGENSIXTEEN.  Let me know if these fees are too high.  On DEMNOMCLINTON I have set the CER to .4BTS/1DEMNOMCLINTON.  We will have to see if this is drained.  On REPNOMTRUMP I have left the CER at 1BTS/1REPNOMTRUMP, and have drained the fee pool.  Opinions please.

[roadscape]

By 'exploiting' you just mean draining, right?

Fee pools are a convenience service.. so it makes sense to charge a premium for their use by decreasing the CER. That's the right way to do it, imo.

[tonyk]

asshole1 is exploiting prediction market's fee pool. Can the CER of prediction market changed to under 1? Or we need another solution to prevent it.

well it should be settable to anything under 1... and/or including no money in the fee pool.

The only good thing here is... the win cli is totally unusable... and open ledger is totally inaccessible that way ...  which results in saved fee pools.

and yes my guess he is using win.... otherwise he would have taken all the fee pools already.

[clayop]

Afaik the cer could br set to anything. ... just not the maintenance collateral ratio

Seems to be a solution

[Shentist]

i think the mistake is the low price of the UIA.

maybe we can also add a function like the "stupid order function" in BTS 1.0. a order below the orderplacement fees should not be accepted if someone uses the feepool of the UIA.

[xeroc]

Afaik the cer could br set to anything. ... just not the maintenance collateral ratio

[Shentist]

maybe the precision should be higher when 1 sports costs only 1 BTS?

[clayop]

asshole1 is exploiting prediction market's fee pool. Can the CER of prediction market changed to under 1? Or we need another solution to prevent it.