0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: tbone on February 22, 2016, 01:38:04 pmQuote from: Empirical1.2 on February 22, 2016, 12:20:13 pmQuote from: chryspano on February 22, 2016, 11:35:56 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on February 22, 2016, 04:20:15 am$10 a day liquidity??@CoinHoarder I was reading an old thread of yours where nagalim commented on how NuBits achieves liquidity. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20804.msg269419.html#msg269419From what I gather, once there is a lot of BitUSD that can be directed to liquidity operations, (which there will be if we implement dilution for yield and end up creating a lot of BitUSD through yield harvesting) then we might be able to achieve thousands of dollars of liquidity for <$10 in incentives a day?Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pmThe end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). The providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it. Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.Except we won't even have the risk of bter/polo exchange default like they do as it will all be on the internal exchangeQuote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pmI'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed. Doesn't really sound plausible that NuBits level liquidity could be achieved so cheaply once the BitUSD funds are available, really interested to learn more.For every nubit they print out of thin air in order to pay their liquidity providers (or whatever they are calling them) they demand 0.5 bitUSD, can you guys understand that? Those funds(bitUSD) will be used WHEN their ponzi starts to collapse, they need real money(bitUSD) to back SOME of their monopoly money. So far they have grabbed 500 btc as "profits" from nubits hodlers but their nushares buy support is only 23 btc(most of those btc's are "profits" and not real support), every week their "profits"(and also the real money backing nubits) are becoming lower and lower https://discuss.nubits.com/t/nsr-buyback-21-week-of-february-15-2016/3530, obviously there are not enought suckers out there and their ponzi starts to collapse. They will either have to reduce their "profits" to almost zero and stay in a fractional reserve state or keep grabbing more money as profits and colapse.We can probably steal some of their ideas but please stay away from those crooks.I'm not advocating taking them up on their offer in that thread (The silly 0.5 BitUSD thing) or endorsing the way NuBits are created, (which I agree sucks) but I am interested in the cost to maintain their buy and sell walls you see on the exchanges. It appears to me their liquidity pools offer NuBits owners circa 0.2% a day to send their NuBits to the liquidity pools and create the buy and sell walls you see in the tight range around the peg. That particular method appears to be cheaper & possibly more effective than the liquidity proposal described here which would cost BTS circa $1000 per day https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html So our BitUSD would be fully backed and created properly via the idea in this thread - Diluting BTS for BitAsset Yield - (All you have to do to avoid dilution is yield harvest BitUSD) Then we will have millions in fully collateralized BitUSD yield harvesting. Then for the same level of incentive, 0.2% a day we could entice some of that BitUSD into liquidity/market making operations and create cost effective buy and sell walls around our peg. As I say I will wait to hear from others if that is actually the case, but that is the part of the approach that interests me.I would love to participate in such a liquidity pool for ~.2%/day return. How variable would that be, and what are the risks, though? Also, how do you see other BitAssets fitting into this whole creation-by-yield-harvesting scenario, especially BitCNY? Could we do the same exact thing for BitCNY and the others? Also, some have suggested perhaps having BitCNY and other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD. Is that even possible in your scenario where BitAssets are created via yield harvesting? And would it even be necessary to have other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD if the BitUSD liquidity pool you've described works as planned?QuoteI would love to participate in such a liquidity pool for ~.2%/day return. How variable would that be, and what are the risks, though?A risk is that the market making operation could lose money in trending markets depending on the spread. https://nupool.net/index.php/Risks_&_ChancesQuoteHedging: Traders might be able to successfully hedge against you. This means that people speculate on the BTC BTS price movement and buy NBT BitUSD from you at a low price and sell them back to you when the price is high (or vice versa). Said behaviour might result in losses for the liquidity provider.A risk is that you could lose money if the BTS price goes down, but I'd be assuming most people participating would be long term bullish on BTS. http://nulagoon.com/lqpools.htmlIt would be interesting to hear from someone who has participated in the NuBits pools to find out how variable/risky that rate of return is and if there other elements to be considered. I have no experience in market making so I would be looking to BM, experienced market makers and others to evaluate the merits of this approach. Quote Also, how do you see other BitAssets fitting into this whole creation-by-yield-harvesting scenario, especially BitCNY? Could we do the same exact thing for BitCNY and the others? Also, some have suggested perhaps having BitCNY and other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD. Is that even possible in your scenario where BitAssets are created via yield harvesting? And would it even be necessary to have other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD if the BitUSD liquidity pool you've described works as planned?I imagine shareholders could apply dilution for yield to a single BitAsset or multiple BitAssets (incl. BitCNY) with pretty much the same outcome. (You just mitigate the dilution on your BTS stake by yield harvesting.) However there may be value in just bootstrapping 1 BitAsset to start. You could have everything trading against BitUSD in this approach which could help liquidity and bootstrapping the key Smartcoin, though I don't think it would be necessary.But yeah I would be pretty excited if I believed we'd implement dilution for yield, because we'd become crypto USD market leader by CAP and number of users virtually overnight for a fairly neutral cost, with a kick ass decentralized exchange and be able to advertise yield. If we could have strong buy and sell walls for a fairly low cost too, (The other $1000 a day proposal seems pretty high to me) by applying the same market making techniques that work for Nubits, once we have most BTS shareholders sitting on yield harvesting USD looking for something to do with it, we'd have liquidity too. Then it's on like Donkey Kong.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 22, 2016, 12:20:13 pmQuote from: chryspano on February 22, 2016, 11:35:56 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on February 22, 2016, 04:20:15 am$10 a day liquidity??@CoinHoarder I was reading an old thread of yours where nagalim commented on how NuBits achieves liquidity. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20804.msg269419.html#msg269419From what I gather, once there is a lot of BitUSD that can be directed to liquidity operations, (which there will be if we implement dilution for yield and end up creating a lot of BitUSD through yield harvesting) then we might be able to achieve thousands of dollars of liquidity for <$10 in incentives a day?Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pmThe end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). The providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it. Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.Except we won't even have the risk of bter/polo exchange default like they do as it will all be on the internal exchangeQuote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pmI'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed. Doesn't really sound plausible that NuBits level liquidity could be achieved so cheaply once the BitUSD funds are available, really interested to learn more.For every nubit they print out of thin air in order to pay their liquidity providers (or whatever they are calling them) they demand 0.5 bitUSD, can you guys understand that? Those funds(bitUSD) will be used WHEN their ponzi starts to collapse, they need real money(bitUSD) to back SOME of their monopoly money. So far they have grabbed 500 btc as "profits" from nubits hodlers but their nushares buy support is only 23 btc(most of those btc's are "profits" and not real support), every week their "profits"(and also the real money backing nubits) are becoming lower and lower https://discuss.nubits.com/t/nsr-buyback-21-week-of-february-15-2016/3530, obviously there are not enought suckers out there and their ponzi starts to collapse. They will either have to reduce their "profits" to almost zero and stay in a fractional reserve state or keep grabbing more money as profits and colapse.We can probably steal some of their ideas but please stay away from those crooks.I'm not advocating taking them up on their offer in that thread (The silly 0.5 BitUSD thing) or endorsing the way NuBits are created, (which I agree sucks) but I am interested in the cost to maintain their buy and sell walls you see on the exchanges. It appears to me their liquidity pools offer NuBits owners circa 0.2% a day to send their NuBits to the liquidity pools and create the buy and sell walls you see in the tight range around the peg. That particular method appears to be cheaper & possibly more effective than the liquidity proposal described here which would cost BTS circa $1000 per day https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html So our BitUSD would be fully backed and created properly via the idea in this thread - Diluting BTS for BitAsset Yield - (All you have to do to avoid dilution is yield harvest BitUSD) Then we will have millions in fully collateralized BitUSD yield harvesting. Then for the same level of incentive, 0.2% a day we could entice some of that BitUSD into liquidity/market making operations and create cost effective buy and sell walls around our peg. As I say I will wait to hear from others if that is actually the case, but that is the part of the approach that interests me.I would love to participate in such a liquidity pool for ~.2%/day return. How variable would that be, and what are the risks, though? Also, how do you see other BitAssets fitting into this whole creation-by-yield-harvesting scenario, especially BitCNY? Could we do the same exact thing for BitCNY and the others? Also, some have suggested perhaps having BitCNY and other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD. Is that even possible in your scenario where BitAssets are created via yield harvesting? And would it even be necessary to have other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD if the BitUSD liquidity pool you've described works as planned?
Quote from: chryspano on February 22, 2016, 11:35:56 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on February 22, 2016, 04:20:15 am$10 a day liquidity??@CoinHoarder I was reading an old thread of yours where nagalim commented on how NuBits achieves liquidity. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20804.msg269419.html#msg269419From what I gather, once there is a lot of BitUSD that can be directed to liquidity operations, (which there will be if we implement dilution for yield and end up creating a lot of BitUSD through yield harvesting) then we might be able to achieve thousands of dollars of liquidity for <$10 in incentives a day?Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pmThe end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). The providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it. Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.Except we won't even have the risk of bter/polo exchange default like they do as it will all be on the internal exchangeQuote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pmI'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed. Doesn't really sound plausible that NuBits level liquidity could be achieved so cheaply once the BitUSD funds are available, really interested to learn more.For every nubit they print out of thin air in order to pay their liquidity providers (or whatever they are calling them) they demand 0.5 bitUSD, can you guys understand that? Those funds(bitUSD) will be used WHEN their ponzi starts to collapse, they need real money(bitUSD) to back SOME of their monopoly money. So far they have grabbed 500 btc as "profits" from nubits hodlers but their nushares buy support is only 23 btc(most of those btc's are "profits" and not real support), every week their "profits"(and also the real money backing nubits) are becoming lower and lower https://discuss.nubits.com/t/nsr-buyback-21-week-of-february-15-2016/3530, obviously there are not enought suckers out there and their ponzi starts to collapse. They will either have to reduce their "profits" to almost zero and stay in a fractional reserve state or keep grabbing more money as profits and colapse.We can probably steal some of their ideas but please stay away from those crooks.I'm not advocating taking them up on their offer in that thread (The silly 0.5 BitUSD thing) or endorsing the way NuBits are created, (which I agree sucks) but I am interested in the cost to maintain their buy and sell walls you see on the exchanges. It appears to me their liquidity pools offer NuBits owners circa 0.2% a day to send their NuBits to the liquidity pools and create the buy and sell walls you see in the tight range around the peg. That particular method appears to be cheaper & possibly more effective than the liquidity proposal described here which would cost BTS circa $1000 per day https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,21544.0.html So our BitUSD would be fully backed and created properly via the idea in this thread - Diluting BTS for BitAsset Yield - (All you have to do to avoid dilution is yield harvest BitUSD) Then we will have millions in fully collateralized BitUSD yield harvesting. Then for the same level of incentive, 0.2% a day we could entice some of that BitUSD into liquidity/market making operations and create cost effective buy and sell walls around our peg. As I say I will wait to hear from others if that is actually the case, but that is the part of the approach that interests me.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 22, 2016, 04:20:15 am$10 a day liquidity??@CoinHoarder I was reading an old thread of yours where nagalim commented on how NuBits achieves liquidity. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20804.msg269419.html#msg269419From what I gather, once there is a lot of BitUSD that can be directed to liquidity operations, (which there will be if we implement dilution for yield and end up creating a lot of BitUSD through yield harvesting) then we might be able to achieve thousands of dollars of liquidity for <$10 in incentives a day?Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pmThe end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). The providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it. Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.Except we won't even have the risk of bter/polo exchange default like they do as it will all be on the internal exchangeQuote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pmI'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed. Doesn't really sound plausible that NuBits level liquidity could be achieved so cheaply once the BitUSD funds are available, really interested to learn more.For every nubit they print out of thin air in order to pay their liquidity providers (or whatever they are calling them) they demand 0.5 bitUSD, can you guys understand that? Those funds(bitUSD) will be used WHEN their ponzi starts to collapse, they need real money(bitUSD) to back SOME of their monopoly money. So far they have grabbed 500 btc as "profits" from nubits hodlers but their nushares buy support is only 23 btc(most of those btc's are "profits" and not real support), every week their "profits"(and also the real money backing nubits) are becoming lower and lower https://discuss.nubits.com/t/nsr-buyback-21-week-of-february-15-2016/3530, obviously there are not enought suckers out there and their ponzi starts to collapse. They will either have to reduce their "profits" to almost zero and stay in a fractional reserve state or keep grabbing more money as profits and colapse.We can probably steal some of their ideas but please stay away from those crooks.
$10 a day liquidity??@CoinHoarder I was reading an old thread of yours where nagalim commented on how NuBits achieves liquidity. https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php/topic,20804.msg269419.html#msg269419From what I gather, once there is a lot of BitUSD that can be directed to liquidity operations, (which there will be if we implement dilution for yield and end up creating a lot of BitUSD through yield harvesting) then we might be able to achieve thousands of dollars of liquidity for <$10 in incentives a day?Quote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 08:53:07 pmThe end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). The providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it. Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.Except we won't even have the risk of bter/polo exchange default like they do as it will all be on the internal exchangeQuote from: Nagalim on January 01, 2016, 10:00:41 pmI'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed. Doesn't really sound plausible that NuBits level liquidity could be achieved so cheaply once the BitUSD funds are available, really interested to learn more.
The end result is that we can get large amounts of funds (thousands of $$) by only rewarding a small, continual payout (single digit $/day). The providers take on all default and volatility risks and get rewarded for it. Everybody's happy, we make a contract, and the whole system becomes reliable and dependable for customers.
I'd suggest we start with something like $1/day until we get a real handle on the price feed.
I would love to participate in such a liquidity pool for ~.2%/day return. How variable would that be, and what are the risks, though?
Hedging: Traders might be able to successfully hedge against you. This means that people speculate on the BTC BTS price movement and buy NBT BitUSD from you at a low price and sell them back to you when the price is high (or vice versa). Said behaviour might result in losses for the liquidity provider.
Also, how do you see other BitAssets fitting into this whole creation-by-yield-harvesting scenario, especially BitCNY? Could we do the same exact thing for BitCNY and the others? Also, some have suggested perhaps having BitCNY and other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD. Is that even possible in your scenario where BitAssets are created via yield harvesting? And would it even be necessary to have other BitAssets trade only against BitUSD if the BitUSD liquidity pool you've described works as planned?
How effective do you think this would be if we offered a smaller % on a trial basis, perhaps 2-3% instead of 5%, just to prove the concept? Actually, maybe 2-3% would be fully sufficient, especially as we move toward an environment when zero or negative bank interest rates become the norm? Either way, could the % be dynamic based on different needs in different market conditions?
For that reason, I would personally be likely to dedicate at least 1M BTS of my own funds to a liquidity pool such as the one you're describing. Although of course I would first need to better understand the mechanics of it all, as well as the full implications for individual shareholders in different circumstances (i.e. Those yield harvesting, those not. Those participating in the liquidity pool, those not. Those bullish on BTS, those bearish. Etc).
@Empirical1.2: I love your ideas on offering yield to incentivize the creation of BitAssets. In my estimation there is NOTHING more important we could be doing right now than ensuring many people have BitAssets in their possession that they'll be ready to spend once merchants start coming online with @kenCode's POS systems.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 21, 2016, 11:21:02 pmQuote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 07:27:53 pmI like the idea of Smartcoins earning interest. However, I prefer that the interest be paid from a percentage of the fee pool like in BTS1.0If I had to choose in between dilution for liquidity, or dilution for Smartcoin interest, then I would choose the former becuase I think it is more important to the success of Bitshares.I don't think it's a choice you have to make.Perhaps you are right.I have an English paper due tomorrow that I haven't started on. I better get to it... I'll be back next week to discuss more.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 07:27:53 pmI like the idea of Smartcoins earning interest. However, I prefer that the interest be paid from a percentage of the fee pool like in BTS1.0If I had to choose in between dilution for liquidity, or dilution for Smartcoin interest, then I would choose the former becuase I think it is more important to the success of Bitshares.I don't think it's a choice you have to make.
I like the idea of Smartcoins earning interest. However, I prefer that the interest be paid from a percentage of the fee pool like in BTS1.0If I had to choose in between dilution for liquidity, or dilution for Smartcoin interest, then I would choose the former becuase I think it is more important to the success of Bitshares.
Quote from: CoinHoarder on February 21, 2016, 07:27:53 pmI like the idea of Smartcoins earning interest. However, I prefer that the interest be paid from a percentage of the fee pool like in BTS1.0If I had to choose in between dilution for liquidity, or dilution for Smartcoin interest, then I would choose the former becuase I think it is more important to the success of Bitshares.I don't think it's a choice you have to make. POS minting rewards are a fairly neutral cost so they don't have to severely limit your ability in other areas. You're a fan of Nubits liquidity right? This could also be a part of a two step liquidity process that sees us create huge buy and sell BitUSD that new BitUSD holders can easily participate and benefit. Step 1: Implement this proposal, BTS minting rewards, and you will create $Millions of BitUSD for very low/fairly neutral cost. Step 2: Implement a trustless Nubits liquidity style pool, possibly with the help of an existing Nubits pool. Then we can send our BitUSD to the trustless pool and participate in the process and earn additional interest. https://nubits.com/current-liquidity-pools Result: We will have created a BitUSD with millions in circulation and large buy and sell walls and the main cost will have been the subsidy we give to the liquidity pool.If you're in contact with anyone there, I would be particularly interested as to whether a liquidity pool could do the job better and for less than the current liquidity proposal?
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 21, 2016, 10:52:50 amLots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process? QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.those POS coins do not generate yield on derived assets, so they can provide whatever fixed yield theywant.in BTS 1.0 the yield was financed from shorters, it was a bit ponzi too, but not so evident.Whatever yield, the dilution has to be fianced /compensated by new investors buying in,otherwise the value of single BTS would go down and no one would like that.
Lots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process? QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.
In case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.
The yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 21, 2016, 11:23:07 amQuote from: jtme on February 21, 2016, 11:18:48 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on February 21, 2016, 10:52:50 amLots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process? QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.Whatever yield, the dilution has to be fianced /compensated by new investors buying in,otherwise the value of single BTS would go down and no one would like that.This is not true imo. When PPC offers 1% minting rewards. It doesn't have to be funded by new investors coming in. All existing coin holders have to do is put their coins into minting and the net result is neutral. Similarly when BTS offers 2.5% minting rewards. It doesn't have to be funded by new investors coming in. All existing coin holders have to do is put their coins into minting (yield harvesting) and the net result is neutral.because in crypto 1% means nothing when the coin fluctuates hundreds % in value, but imagine you would mint 10% every day. the value of the coinwould go down unless someone would be be buying them or the minters would keep them all.The point is lets not pretend this is magic money where you can create more of itwithout having new investors coming in and keep the price steady.In bitcoin it is the same. There have to be new buyers for new minted coins.But bitcoin does not provide yields to the holders and especially not on derived assets.
Quote from: jtme on February 21, 2016, 11:18:48 amQuote from: Empirical1.2 on February 21, 2016, 10:52:50 amLots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process? QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.Whatever yield, the dilution has to be fianced /compensated by new investors buying in,otherwise the value of single BTS would go down and no one would like that.This is not true imo. When PPC offers 1% minting rewards. It doesn't have to be funded by new investors coming in. All existing coin holders have to do is put their coins into minting and the net result is neutral. Similarly when BTS offers 2.5% minting rewards. It doesn't have to be funded by new investors coming in. All existing coin holders have to do is put their coins into minting (yield harvesting) and the net result is neutral.
Quote from: Empirical1.2 on February 21, 2016, 10:52:50 amLots of coins already offer POS minting rewards, which exchanges currently mint their balances and return the rewards to their customers which is presumably a much simpler process? QuoteIn case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.On the contrary, BitAssets have had variable yield before ranging from 0-5% in BTS 1.0, it was removed in 2.0, nothing collapsed...QuoteThe yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors, when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.It's also not a ponzi scheme, it's a redistribution scheme.Whatever yield, the dilution has to be fianced /compensated by new investors buying in,otherwise the value of single BTS would go down and no one would like that.
In bitcoin it is the same. There have to be new buyers for new minted coins.
This is nothing more than a proposal for elaborate ponzi scheme - or it willbe perceived so by many. The yield can be only financed from the latecomer investors,when the marketcap will start to deflate, it's over.There is not a problem with demand , there is a problem with supplyNO one will be incentivized by this to short and sell USD especialy afterthey can get 5% yield on it.It will not move bts from exchanges - exchanges will simply implement shortingand yield harvesting for those who keep bts at them.At least BM proposal for Subsidizing Market Liquidity is for jumpstarting ofliquidity. Eventualy later the subsidy can be removed. In case of 5% yield, this has to be perpetuated until the ponzi colapses.
It will not move bts from exchanges - exchanges will simply implement shortingand yield harvesting for those who keep bts at them.
control bitAsset bitcny bitusd……dump btsLack of collateralbts fucked overbitCNY bitUSD holder winall fucked
They offered the liquidity maker for free. Yield wasn't part of the offer.
Quote from: BTS熊 on February 20, 2016, 05:33:40 am , great, good idea, i like it, just do it!My man
, great, good idea, i like it, just do it!
I'm all for yield, but i think it should be separate from this liquidity project. I think the idea of setting up a treasure bill or bond that only accepts bitassets or initially just bitusd should be used for yield. When people create bitassets they either sit on them or sell them back into the market. Why not have a bond/bill for people to place their newly created bitassets into that can generate a return for them. Better yet, have the option at short creation to send thenewly crerated bitassets directly to a bond/bill.
This is why tonyk's idea initially sounded like genius, making BitUSD the center of the trading universe. As has been pointed out, it suffers from other concerns that make that approach a non-starter IMO.
I believe a key reason for removing it was yield harvesting which made BitAsset yield approach zero & with a lot people hoarding.Quote from: bytemaster on February 19, 2016, 10:36:33 pmProviding yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approahed 0./quote]
Providing yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approahed 0.
However, before we do yet another about face and re-implement this, let's have a thorough discussion about the pros and cons of yield / interest on BitAssets. CNX had their reasons for removing it, but were they valid? What data metrics can we isolate to help understand the value (or lack thereof) of this, now that we have some history of both yielding and non-yielding BitAssets.
Providing yield on USD doesn't work because of yield harvesting, people would create USD and sit on it until the rate of return approached 0.
Quote from: BTS熊 on February 20, 2016, 05:33:40 am , great, good idea, i like it, just do it!My man I have a few questions.1. If we do this, and things seem to go sideways, wouldn't it be just a matter of the Committee adjusting the rate? We can put an end to the experiment going wrong. Or even more direct, shareholders can vote out the Worker, In which case, the risk is manageable on two fronts.Yes, it could easily be adjusted/removed, but it might be a good idea to commit to a certain dilution rate experiment for a few months at least, so people know it's worth their while to make the effort. 2. Would this mean a much tighter peg to real USD? ie. a premium in the neighbourhood of 1% instead of 50%? It would be a big incentive to new longs so besides yield harvesting, we would see a genuine increase in new demand on the buy side, we may even have to drop forced settlement to 98/99%, which I'm in favour of anyway to bring the longs closer to the 1-1 peg and not too far above. Lowering the forced settlement number is a positive for the shorts so we bring them slightly tighter with that, tonyk's suggestion of splitting the yield so some goes to shorts should incentivize them some more still. Currently though the market isn't excited about BTS future price (having been in a fairly long general downtrend) so if there's a gap in just applying this strategy it's that we may not get enough new demand on the short side and some may still be a little further from the longs than we'd like. 3. What will it cost us if we don't do this?If we do it we likely rapidly become the Crypto USD market leader in CAP and users, if we don't our current market share of 2% may increase with liquidity measures but not as significantly or rapidly on those metrics. So it costs us market leader position at a time when there is a lot of competition, already 4/5 Crypto USD's on the market, rune's maker and presumably other Ethereum based price stable options coming on soon. 4. Can anybody think of a better way to utilize 50% of the reserve in the short term?Some are fans of the liquidity specific measures. I like this because the definite benefits are higher imo but the cost is fairly low/neutral to shareholders if they make the effort to yield harvest.
Quote from: cube on February 20, 2016, 09:22:47 amThis is a redistribution of future wealth to bitassets' holders. It encourages bitasset hoarding. How does it solve the liquidity problem when users are hoarding their bitassets eg bitUSD (ie shorters cannot close their position when users do not wish to sell their bitUSD) ?it helps the liquidity problem by forcing savers to buy their assets on an illiquid market. the potential yield overcomes this cost and does promote hoarding of bitassets on the smartchain. giving people a great reason to buy the asset is step 1 (learning to walk). the longer the assets are held, the less impact the trading spread has overall. i think we should take BM up on his offer to code his provision for liquidity incentive but code in a provision for yield on assets simultaneously half the money goes to yield and the other half toward this type of liquidity subsidychinese only hate dilution if they are not on the receiving endgive them a simple buy and hold option to gain yield and they will not complain about this dilution. this is no different than any current staking POS mechanism therefore nobody could call it a ponzi without saying that ether is going to be a ponzi when Casper is implemented and all the whales begin harvesting their yield. in fact you could argue that this is the one component that is missing from our mechanism that the crypto community at large demands!ETHDASHPPC all offer it. so why dont we!!the market is speakig but are we listening?
This is a redistribution of future wealth to bitassets' holders. It encourages bitasset hoarding. How does it solve the liquidity problem when users are hoarding their bitassets eg bitUSD (ie shorters cannot close their position when users do not wish to sell their bitUSD) ?
What happens if the price falls and we can't dilute anymore or offer the same yield? People will dump everything. This would be fine as long as the price increases but there's not much backing that up. People will only hoard. At least with subsidized liquidity we are stimulating the use of the DEX.
At a future date you could even remove/drastically reduce the yield but you would be left with thousands of BitUSD holders that are now familiar with the DEX and it's other advantages and a lot of BTS that has been removed from the centralized exchanges.
I wouldn't call it a redistribution of future wealth but of current wealth which can be mitigated by yield harvesting. So it's fairly neutral in cost but with the benefits of removing BTS from centralized exchanges, creating the Crypto USD market leader by CAP and number of holders. There could be increased liquidity benefits due to number of holders and people moving in and out of their overall BTS/USD positions. As you can see from an old Bitcoin study, 70% of it was hoarded and hadn't moved for 6 months+, http://www.ofnumbers.com/2014/11/22/approximately-70-of-all-bitcoins-have-not-moved-in-6-or-more-months/ yet Bitcoin was still fairly liquid despite the hoarding and had a large amount of utility (100 000+ merchants) because third parties were attracted to the potential market (based on CAP and number of holders.) As I said though as this is a fairly net neutral cost redistribution, you still have room to make a separate more purely liquidity focused play as well if you choose....
That's not to say other liquidity centric measures couldn't be adopted if shareholders agree the cost of diluting for yield is fairly low considering it can be mitigated by yield harvesting?
Isn't that counterproductive?Offering yield on BitAssets by diluting BTS would drive the BitAsset price up (which is trading 5% above the peg anyway) and BTS price further down. I'd always thought we want BTS to go up, relative to the BitAssets.
I don't think people parking money in BitAssets and letting it sit there has enough value to us to justify this.
...paying individuals to commit funds for longer periods of time... provides enduring value..
...using dilution as high as 15% on short-term speculators to compensate long-term investors can be very helpful in both securing the network, building loyalty, and creating a profitable system.
I think knocking those very restrictive 5 BTS/sec cap is in order... By the beginning of March the dev. alone will have to start in-fights to get above the threshold of being paid or not. Add BM's liquidity spending, and you yourself have 2 ideas in 2 days how to spend those funds. To say nothing that 10% is better than 5% so you can use a little extra.What is a good number to last us say at lest 6mo? 50 BTS/sec? Sounds good?On other benefits of dilution read and listen to BM. How to put yourself in 'Dilution (or Delusion) state of mind, read my other posts'.
On this particular proposal - give 50% to shorters and 50% to smartcoin holders. Yield harvesting still yields the same, just some crazy short my sell into this newfound bitAssets demand.