BitShares Forum
Main => General Discussion => Topic started by: tonyk on June 08, 2014, 12:33:03 am
-
Random thoughts.... (not necessarily mine)
Price Fixing in the abstract sense is anytime a parameter of our system is not based upon market forces.
Examples Include:
1) 5% fee for margin calls
2) 5% fee for moving old outputs forward (inactivity fee)
3)Delegates’ cut of total fees 10%
4) Margin call when collateral falls to 150%
5) 200% initial margin
6) Number of delegates 100
Each of these numbers represents an 'arbitrary' choice based upon one opinion / estimate of what is optimum. They are also static and the reality is that the optimum setting for these numbers must change over time. So what works today may be 'too high' tomorrow. In a low volatility market, calling margin at 150% may be entirely too conservative and many people would consider 200% initial margin to be too conservative. The point is that all of these numbers represent a form of price fixing that could leave the market vulnerable to both competitors and in the worst case complete failure.
The network needs to gather meaningful, honest, information upon which to make decisions on where to set these numbers.
-
I think I recognize those thoughts.
-
You sure should....
-
+5%
great post Tony. I share the concern, and agree that we should be thinking carefully about these things to get a better idea of the tradeoffs involved.
-
Absolutely. I'm not sure there's any way to run a simulation of this beforehand. People will need to understand that there must be some tweaking as this goes forward.
-
I see no reason for a 10% cap on delegate transaction fee cut. Why shouldn't delegates individually allocate 100% of transaction fees between destruction for dividends, their own cut, and funding development or charity or whatever they think the stakeholders want?
The inactivity fee could just be replaced with total destruction of funds after a year or so of inactivity, but that might make people nervous. Is the another reason for the inactivity fee besides eliminating the need for permanent storage of old blocks?
-
I see no reason for a 10% cap on delegate transaction fee cut. Why shouldn't delegates individually allocate 100% of transaction fees between destruction for dividends, their own cut, and funding development or charity or whatever they think the stakeholders want?
shhhhh, don't reveal our secrets ;)
-
I see no reason for a 10% cap on delegate transaction fee cut. Why shouldn't delegates individually allocate 100% of transaction fees between destruction for dividends, their own cut, and funding development or charity or whatever they think the stakeholders want?
shhhhh, don't reveal our secrets ;)
Exactly.