bounties and some questions

[Rune]

I thought I already won the second bounty by saying it does not really matter what % you choose. Real Insurances must have all the money upfront, what you are doing is collecting money for a rainy day. It really does not matter what % you chose.

On the same note - you can set aside from launch an amount that you dedicate for that purpose (i.e. insurance) from the total supply - not a perfect solution but the ONLY one that makes some sense.

Infinite makercoin is set aside from launch for insurance

The assertion that the system is fundamentally flawed in an obvious way that can be described with a few lines on a forum post is easily contradicted by the fact that MKR has a market value. (Unless you want to argue that all MKR investors/employees are idiots, which seems a bit harsh even for the crypto community)

If you think that argument sucks, I hope you'll be  encouraged to do more research and come up with arguments for your position, so I'll have something real to make a rebuttal of. If you manage to prove with real arguments (such as examples using microeconomics) that forced inflation doesn't work as an insurance fund (as long as the asset still has market value) then you'll definitely get the bounty . In fact this makes me think I should make another, much higher bounty for finding a flaw in the whitepaper. How much money would motivate you to do real research?

What research and more proof do you need Rune - As I said in the other thread that:
1. in the case of falling MKR coin prices from the very beginning, the shorters (or whatever they are called in you system) demand being paid interest (instead of paying for interest and insurance)  => no insurance fund.
2.  If black swan occurs at some point during this price decline you have no funds to cover the stable asset so you print more MKR. Driving the price further down.
The only thing needing proof in the above is the claim that at falling prices (and  expectations the price decline to continue) the shorters demand being paid interest. If that is the proof that you need I can gladly do it for you.

Interest rates going negative when there is bear market in  a single asset is just a blind assertion. Take a look at historical btc price vs interest rate on btc collateralized debt if you want to actually try to prove this (hint: reality won't fit your beliefs). Secondly if it was true its still completely disconnected from the second part of your argument. Interest rates can be negative while the insurance rate stays positive..

I think what's causing you trouble is wrapping your head around the negative interest with positive insurance rate. It appears counterintuitive so you conclude that the system would go into a weird failure mode with a damaging positive feedback on the insurance rate.

However, consider the scenario where yield is -5% and the insurance rate is 2%. Dai issuers would see their outstanding debt fall with -3% APR, achieving what you just thought impossible! Bear in mind that this scenario requires either absurd Dai demand, or a global economic downturn of cataclysmic levels. Despite that, the insurance rate and Makers income relative to outstanding Dai would remain the same.

[tonyk]

I thought I already won the second bounty by saying it does not really matter what % you choose. Real Insurances must have all the money upfront, what you are doing is collecting money for a rainy day. It really does not matter what % you chose.

On the same note - you can set aside from launch an amount that you dedicate for that purpose (i.e. insurance) from the total supply - not a perfect solution but the ONLY one that makes some sense.

Infinite makercoin is set aside from launch for insurance

The assertion that the system is fundamentally flawed in an obvious way that can be described with a few lines on a forum post is easily contradicted by the fact that MKR has a market value. (Unless you want to argue that all MKR investors/employees are idiots, which seems a bit harsh even for the crypto community)

If you think that argument sucks, I hope you'll be  encouraged to do more research and come up with arguments for your position, so I'll have something real to make a rebuttal of. If you manage to prove with real arguments (such as examples using microeconomics) that forced inflation doesn't work as an insurance fund (as long as the asset still has market value) then you'll definitely get the bounty . In fact this makes me think I should make another, much higher bounty for finding a flaw in the whitepaper. How much money would motivate you to do real research?

What research and more proof do you need Rune - As I said in the other thread that:
1. in the case of falling MKR coin prices from the very beginning, the shorters (or whatever they are called in you system) demand being paid interest (instead of paying for interest and insurance)  => no insurance fund.
2.  If black swan occurs at some point during this price decline you have no funds to cover the stable asset so you print more MKR. Driving the price further down.
The only thing needing proof in the above is the claim that at falling prices (and  expectations the price decline to continue) the shorters demand being paid interest. If that is the proof that you need I can gladly do it for you.



and on this "The assertion that the system is fundamentally flawed... is contradicted by the fact that MKR has a market value"

[EDIT}
No one is saying your system is fundamentally flawed! - And it has value because the chance of this black swan event is so tiny that the value of the system accounts for the 99.99999% chance that such event will never happen. All I am saying is that the statement that your system is better than BTS because it has insurance - Is not correct!

[Rune]

I thought I already won the second bounty by saying it does not really matter what % you choose. Real Insurances must have all the money upfront, what you are doing is collecting money for a rainy day. It really does not matter what % you chose.

On the same note - you can set aside from launch an amount that you dedicate for that purpose (i.e. insurance) from the total supply - not a perfect solution but the ONLY one that makes some sense.

Infinite makercoin is set aside from launch for insurance

The assertion that the system is fundamentally flawed in an obvious way that can be described with a few lines on a forum post is easily contradicted by the fact that MKR has a market value. (Unless you want to argue that all MKR investors/employees are idiots, which seems a bit harsh even for the crypto community)

If you think that counterargument sucks, I hope you'll be encouraged to do more research and come up with arguments for your position, so I'll have something real to make a rebuttal of. If you manage to prove with real arguments (such as examples using microeconomics) that forced inflation doesn't work as an insurance fund (as long as the asset still has market value) then you'll definitely get the bounty . In fact this makes me think I should make another, much higher bounty for finding a flaw in the whitepaper. How much money would motivate you to do real research?

[tonyk]

I thought I already won the second bounty by saying it does not really matter what % you choose. Real Insurances must have all the money upfront, what you are doing is collecting money for a rainy day. It really does not matter what % you chose.

On the same note - you can set aside from launch an amount that you dedicate for that purpose (i.e. insurance) from the total supply - not a perfect solution but the ONLY one that makes some sense.

[Rune]

Bounty 1: I want to try to pay back the 30% haircut that all holders of CFSGOLD had to take (and possibly other CFS assets), however it's not immediately apparent for me or Riverhead how to figure out the addresses and amount now that we have bought back most of the CFSGOLD. Instead I want to offer a bounty of 500 USD in BTS/BTC/BitUSD or another liquid asset of your choice for someone who can provide me a list of the addresses that I owe as well as the amounts of the haircuts they received, backed by hard evidence of course. I'll increase this bounty over time if no one bites as I want to make sure to pay back all outstanding debts (im estimating it was around 5k USD that was lost, so still a significant amount of money). Trusted users can get access to data from us, if you can think of something that would be useful for this purpose.

Bounty 2: We are now beginning discussions on how to set the insurance rate of the Dai Credit System. It's a variable rate that will be optimized on as the system progresses, but it still needs an initial value that isn't completely bonkers. Currently the best argument for this is 4% per year (meaning if debt interest is 11% then dai yield is 7%), if someone comes up with a solid public argument on the Maker forum for a different initial value I'll pay 1000 USD for the effort. See my post here: https://forum.makerdao.com/t/argument-for-a-4-insurance-rate/279/4?u=rune

I also want to know what the community thinks of me using general discussion here to cross post announcements of various new projects and assets over the coming days (alongside forum.makerdao.com, /r/ethereum, /r/ethtrader and /r/makerotc). There's a lot coming, and everything except one involves bitshares from its inception.

Also, if I register a short UIA name for 500k BTS now, will it carry over to graphene without any change? How much will short UIA names cost post graphene?