0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
what happened to this idea and the proposal to sell accumulated fees which are now sitting in the committee account?
Quote from: pc on January 10, 2016, 02:59:31 pmQuote from: bitcrab on January 10, 2016, 11:40:21 amI don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules. If there is a constant premium, then adjust the market operations (eg. forced settlement) to bring the risk/incentives as well as price back in line. Alternatively, if it is the spread that is too large, then that's a signal that there are profit opportunities for market-makers.Using dilution for this, is like a company buying it's own product to improve it's books.
Quote from: bitcrab on January 10, 2016, 11:40:21 amI don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules.
I don't think worker proposal should be used to do the things such as market making for a specific BitAsset, system should only define rules.
Quote from: Chronos on January 10, 2016, 04:34:35 am@CoinHoarder Are you aware of the Forced Settlement feature inside Bitshares? It allows the holder of a smartcoin like BitUSD to convert back to BTS at 99% of the price feed.Settlememt is at exactly feed price (100%)
@CoinHoarder Are you aware of the Forced Settlement feature inside Bitshares? It allows the holder of a smartcoin like BitUSD to convert back to BTS at 99% of the price feed.
Quote from: xeroc on January 10, 2016, 06:59:44 amYou need to also realize that a workee that pays to the committe does not 'really' result in an extra 'dilution' since the funds cannot easily leave the system as sell pressure on polo .. the workers pay will stay in the system and may even make some profit for the dex .. Fast forward some months, those profits could be burned againI've been trying to reason through the math of that. Let's say we create a worker proposal for $30k worth of bts. We then use that to short $10k USD. We then sell that $10k USD for $10k worth of bts. Result is not net inflationary right? $10k USD on the market plus $30k USD as collateral. I think I must be missing something through.
You need to also realize that a workee that pays to the committe does not 'really' result in an extra 'dilution' since the funds cannot easily leave the system as sell pressure on polo .. the workers pay will stay in the system and may even make some profit for the dex .. Fast forward some months, those profits could be burned again
Ok...Now that the wording of the poll has changed I don't have a problem and would support a worker proposal for that reason. I will even start voting if we have a worker proposal to reduce the premium for bitassets..Just please never mention the word dilution in the forum even if the worker proposal is essentially that please don't mention this word..!!
why not have it so all thebworkers pay out in actual bitassets instead of bts directly?
Quote from: CoinHoarder on January 09, 2016, 09:09:22 pmExactly. I would 100% unequivocally buy 1 Nubit before buying 1 bitUSD, because it is way more likely that there will be someone to buy it back close to parity whenever I happened to want to sell it.@CoinHoarder Are you aware of the Forced Settlement feature inside Bitshares? It allows the holder of a smartcoin like BitUSD to convert back to BTS at 99% of the price feed.I'm interested to hear what @bytemaster thinks of the idea of committee-owned short sales at some fixed percentage above the price feed.
Exactly. I would 100% unequivocally buy 1 Nubit before buying 1 bitUSD, because it is way more likely that there will be someone to buy it back close to parity whenever I happened to want to sell it.
I think the members who manage the account should be a separate committee or sub-committee of members who are dedicated to just managing this. They should be experience traders who primary responsibility is managing the spread. This way there is no conflict with any other responsibilities they will have
Nubits is just a little bit under the market value of Nushares, so what will happen when some whale will dump Nushares and the value will drop below that?i don't get it how they will solve this problem, but anyway in my understanding most of the nubits are holded by liquidityprovider and not so much with users.
While Bitcoin is a first generation cryptoasset, Peercoin was the beginning of the second generation defined by proof of stake. Nu heralds a third generation of cryptoassets featuring stable value managed by shareholders. Will there be a fourth generation? Likely. I do not yet know what will be its defining characteristics, when it will arrive or whether it will make Nu obsolete. Nu is more adaptable than Bitcoin or Peercoin with its voting mechanisms and shareholders are likely to devote considerable revenues to updating it as well as research and development. While I believe the system can likely be sustained for a very long time, it would be foolish to believe it could last forever, as in century after century. Someday it will be replaced by a superior system based on technology not foreseeable today.When this occurs, NuBit demand will decline permanently. The end of the currency will be marked by interest rates rising to unprecedented highs and then going still higher until the vast majority of NuBits are parked. When market participants reach a unanimous consensus that NuBits are worthless, then they will suddenly drop to zero value from one USD. As long as a small group of speculators believe there is even a small chance NuBit demand will reach a new all time high the price will remain one USD. As the currency shows signs of stress and serious decline in levels of use NuBits will pass from ordinary businesses and people to speculators willing to take large risks for large rewards. Ownership of NuBits will centralize somewhat as the currency shows signs of stress. Failure of the currency is not synonymous with failure of the network. If there are other currencies offered by Nu, they will continue to be unaffected.In the space between now and obsolescence, there is much that Nu can do to benefit shareholders and its users.Finally, it should be noted that Nu is experimental software at this point. It may not work as intended. However, shareholders will be tenacious in repairing any defects that are found.
They have liquidity and strong peg. The two things we need the most.
I changed the wording of the poll. Looks like we lost the ability to reset our votes when I did though.
The word 'dilution' is a bad word to use in cryptoland. I say we stop using it around here and not consider it.Maker and lending are best for increasing liquidity organically in a more market-driven, p2p fashion. These two features combined with some market making with the reserve pool should be the first steps towards increasing liquidity.
QuoteMaker and lending are best for increasing liquidity organically in a more market-driven, p2p fashion. These two features combined with some market making with the reserve pool should be the first steps towards increasing liquidity.
Maker and lending are best for increasing liquidity organically in a more market-driven, p2p fashion. These two features combined with some market making with the reserve pool should be the first steps towards increasing liquidity.
The reserve pool should be used to create a supply of bitasset and then they should be put up for sale as a single large wall at no lower than feed price +10% This is important for those wishing to close their bitasset debt obligations at a reasonable price. If bitasset creators are not confident they will be able to exit their positions they are less likely to create bitassets which is bad for liquidity. The committee will have to be trusted with value that is 300% than the assets created because of reserve requirements. the proceeds of these sales should be returned to the reserve pool so it is less of a dilution and it stops the committee destroying the bitassets created.I think this should be done with bitusd only first as a trial.
The word 'dilution' is a bad word to use in cryptoland. I say we stop using it around here and not consider it.
Quote from: xeroc on January 09, 2016, 10:40:15 amI further recommend to use a separate multisig account controlled by people familiar with trading and scripting to not bother the committee more.How to run a trading bot with a multisig account, would be a challenge. Maybe MAKER is easier/sooner.
I further recommend to use a separate multisig account controlled by people familiar with trading and scripting to not bother the committee more.