Main > Stakeholder Proposals
[Worker Proposal] BitAsset PhD Research project - University of Colorado
abit:
--- Quote from: bench on August 27, 2019, 12:16:22 pm ---
--- Quote from: pc on August 27, 2019, 12:07:12 pm ---How do you *know* (instead of believe)? E. g. I believe that "MCR=1.01 -> 100% safe" is obviously untrue, because a drop of 2% in BTS price will lead to undercollateralization and destroy the peg.
--- End quote ---
Because the unlimited liquidity can always increase the CR faster, than the price drop!
--- End quote ---
There is no unlimited liquidity. You put a buy order but nobody would sell. You buy up means only you think your bitX doesn't work 1 X, but not mean BTS price will go up. Anyone dumps in another market will still crash the price, then all the debt positions will become margin calls and collateral be dumped to the market and crash the DEX price, leads to unlimited liquidity of dumping.
bench:
--- Quote from: pc on August 27, 2019, 12:07:12 pm ---How do you *know* (instead of believe)? E. g. I believe that "MCR=1.01 -> 100% safe" is obviously untrue, because a drop of 2% in BTS price will lead to undercollateralization and destroy the peg.
--- End quote ---
Because the unlimited liquidity can always increase the CR faster, than the limited price drop!
pc:
--- Quote from: bench on August 27, 2019, 11:32:15 am ---We already know:
MCR = 2.0 -> low liquidity -> unsafe
MCR = 1.01 -> unlimited liquidity -> 100% safe
--- End quote ---
How do you *know* (instead of believe)? E. g. I believe that "MCR=1.01 -> 100% safe" is obviously untrue, because a drop of 2% in BTS price will lead to undercollateralization and destroy the peg.
bench:
--- Quote from: ioBanker on August 27, 2019, 07:45:32 am ---I don't see how this worker would help the value of BTS.
--- End quote ---
Not only you see no value in this worker, but also the majority of the voters see now value in this worker proposal.
We already know:
MCR = 2.0 -> low liquidity -> unsafe
MCR = 1.01 -> unlimited liquidity -> 100% safe
Our problem is now liquidity and BTS price and not to set the parameter for MCR/MSSR!
My proposal does solve the problem by increasing the liquidity and the demand for BTS:
Margin position liquidity pool - https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182
Ammar Yousef (ioBanker):
--- Quote from: Fox on August 26, 2019, 04:14:35 pm ---I invite everyone to look at how the top research institutions are attempting to establish cryptocurrency and DLT as an academic field and most importantly why. The MIT Media Lab are hosting the Cryptoeconomic Systems "Field Building Summit" 5-6 OCT [1]. Page 2 sets up the Problem and page 4 addresses the Solution. Companies are most willing to build on rigorously researched system designs. Lacking the establishment of what is fact and what remains an open question, this field will fail to advance to its potential.
The same is true for the BitShares Protocol.
As a member of the Core Team tasked with implementing the protocol, I can assure you that formal research and peer review will lead to more robust designs and result in implementation of the DeFi DeFi tools businesses will build upon and investors are willing to participate within.
[1] https://assets.pubpub.org/pbghqdg6/11562785633291.pdf
--- End quote ---
Thanks for sharing this Fox and for your continues great efforts, In my opinion we need to satisfy our own existing investors through stabilizing the price and putting a clear budgeting direction for our expenses with some basic accounting knowledge.
I agree with the vision that formal research is a very helpful thing but I don't see it helping at this stage, we need to approach business itself to satisfy BTS use cases.
I don't see how this worker would help the value of BTS.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version