No virus. We are trying to build risk prevention systems that include some economic transactions between measurement stations

Haha the virus thing was sort of a joke. Well, lacking any more details, I have no idea how to answer your original question.

I don't see exactly how autonomous agents, in a closed system, can make transactions that are really "economic." If you're using economic value as a proxy for some kind of game theoretic utility, that's all well and good, but this wouldn't really be a DAC unless you're somehow monetizing and paying shareholders, which would mean this isn't actually a closed system.

But I only say that because every time you post a new message, you give just a tiny vague hint of what you're talking about, and my imagination takes your hint and probably makes a bunch of completely false assumptions about your plans. So, I'll keep on with my original line of "I have no idea whether you should honor PTS/AGS; but if you explain your plans, maybe I'll be able to tell you."

I predict a reasonable rise in NuBit interest rates will actually lead to panic selling not parking.

This would make for an interesting Best Response analysis!

Let's say I hold NuBits, and I believe that the interest rate is positively correlated to the likelihood that NuBits is about to collapse. In other words, I believe there is a function t(r) that describes how many days before the NuBits collapse as a function of the interest rate r (to make the math easy, assume r is in %/day). Then if I have N NuBits, for any interest rate r, I have two options:

1) sell now and profit N.
2) park for a little less than t(r) days, sell right before the collapse, and make over N*(1+t(r)*r). (I'm not compounding interest; this is a lower bound)

Well look at that! Unless t(r)=0, option (2) always gives me a higher payoff than option (1)! So we should expect that even when the NuBits collapse is imminent, there will probably always be some risk-seeking individual(s) out there who are going to park for one more day in the hopes of making away with one more dollar. Of course, at some point the risk-averse people, who have been selling all along, will reach some critical mass of selling volume that the market-makers can't keep up with and the peg will break and the risk-seekers will lose all their money.

Interestingly, the custodians (aka the fat cats who make NuBits possible) will also have a choice to make:

1) Keep buying excess NuBits, trying to maintain the peg
2) Abandon their responsibility to buy excess NuBits because the collapse is imminent and the longer they wait the more they lose.

Clearly, some custodians will abandon earlier than others; the ones who hold out longer will lose more money. So notice here that in a collapse scenario, the custodians have a strong incentive to abandon the holders of NuBits!

Check out this negative reply from BM
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=9323.msg120763#msg120763

I still don't understand why it would be so difficult to implement this for buy-orders since it's already done for short orders.

Thanks for the link!
I'll have to defer to his knowledge of the codebase on this one, but I agree - it seems like it should take very little effort. Seems.

The thing is, automated bots would provide only a tiny marginal benefit over sliding orders. Sliding orders ARE trading bots, built into the protocol so everybody can use them.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Argentina had such a good experience last time they had a USD-pegged currency. I'm sure they'd love it...

In all seriousness, adoption down there means someone with BTSX has to trade them away for Argentine and Venezuelan currency. What's the business case for doing so?

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Great post and great replies. I was actually thinking about this myself!

Yeah, I've seen this question come up before, and I prefer the answers this time around.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

I don't think they are reluctant, I think it has to do with the fact that there is low demand for bitUSD right now. It's easy to get in but not so easy to get out. I think the only solution is to create demand for bitUSD through merchant adoption. The best mm bots can do right now is create artificial volume.

Well, I'm reluctant because if I decided to play market maker and added a bunch of buy-side liquidity, I'd end up with a great big pile of bitUSD and nobody to sell it to. The fact that nobody is buying bitUSD near the peg is evidence that there isn't much money to be made playing market-maker.

Sent from my SCH-S720C using Tapatalk 2

Quote from: biophil on October 14, 2014, 08:23:32 pm

Quote from: Chronos on October 14, 2014, 08:15:57 pm

Rates will have to rise way more than 0.002% before they'd be any indicator of the health of the peg. A better metric would be the amount of buy offers for NuBits at the pegged $1 price. Right now, according to the client (which reports via RPC), it's at about USD $140000, spread across a couple different exchanges. This means that, if $140000 of NuBits were suddenly sold, the peg would be in trouble.

If that number goes down, that's bad for the network, but if it goes up, it's a sign of growing demand.

He's saying that changes in the interest rate will be an indicator. The interest rate just increased from 0% to 0.002%; that means maybe the NuShareholders are trying to get people to park, because demand for NuBits is decreasing. Maybe.

The number of buy orders essentially tells you nothing, since we have no idea how much the trading bots have on reserve that they haven't entered as orders. If we could actually see the bots' reserves, we could use that to measure NuBits' health. Right now if $140,000 NuBits were sold, my guess is the bots would immediately throw up another $140,000 of buy orders at the peg.

Trading bots with "secret" reserves... sounds like a very opaque system.

Yeah, I need to look into that... I remember reading somewhere that supposedly NuShareholders are supposed to be able to monitor these reserves. If they can, it seems like it would be difficult to keep it secret for long. Maybe it's actually more public than it seems.

Not that I'm defending NuBits, no sir.