226
General Discussion / Re: Subsidizing Market Liquidity
« on: March 22, 2016, 07:21:37 pm »@tonyk Your proposed changes make sense, but continuous monitoring is much more complex than sampling*. What does it capture that sampling can't? And what if samples were e.g. 15 mins apart?
* more complex to implement, and correctly. and if anything goes wrong it may be difficult to "replay" the events because we don't have historical orderbook API. at any rate, this would have to be an open source script/daemon that multiple people run and cross-check results. and this, too, will be much easier if we deal with snapshots rather than streams of data. not ruling anything out but I'd like to make sure we exhaust the simplest options.
I don't see how we can do meaningful scoring with 1-hour snapshots. But without a way to replay events, I have no idea what the answer is.
@cylonmaker2053 20% seems a bit high if we're trying to maintain a tight peg, no? For other markets it might make sense but imho for *stable* coins it should be a tight band.
I think it's beneficial to have a deep order book, especially if black swans are a risk. So we could reward orders deeper in the book, just not nearly as much. For example, perhaps x reward within 2% of the peg. Then maybe 1/5x between 2 and 5%. And then maybe 1/20x between 5 and 20%, or something along those lines. This way we encourage both a tight peg and a deep order book.
Also: should we use the feed price or the center of the spread for P? (My preference would be to not rely on feed price if possible)
I think this has to be the price feed. Otherwise we may reward a tight spread, but around what price?