Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - xeroc

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 858
BEOS / Re: [WTS] 100,000 BOES @ 0.25$
« on: July 10, 2019, 03:13:09 pm »
How the valuation derived? 0.25$/BEOS
There is no price reference for BEOS yet. That's why I picked 'my' price. The purpose of this thread is to provide a currently unique offer and help establish a price.

Those that have been part of the forums from day one, remember that rhis is how price was discovered when there were no exchanges :)

BEOS / [WTS] 100,000 BOES @ 0.25$
« on: July 10, 2019, 02:41:41 pm »
Now that BEOS tokens are (supposedly) liquid, I am looking to sell 100k BEOS for
  • 0.25$/BEOS
each. Selling in chunks of 10k BEOS.
Price will decrease over time.

Accepted currencies:
* bitUSD
* bitCNY

Open to proposals for escrow.

General Discussion / Re: topics to be discussed in Shanghai
« on: July 04, 2019, 11:22:18 am »
Remind me again, isn't Huobi present at GrapheneDevCon in Shanghai this weekend?

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Core Team Worker Funding Status
« on: July 02, 2019, 01:24:01 pm »
Removed my vote!

General Discussion / Re: [Ann] Testnet release 3.2.0
« on: June 24, 2019, 02:40:42 pm »
Redeploying testnet nodes

It's not a surprise to me that bitUSD is in a premium of 2%+.
Also, comparing it with bitCNY is weird as there are not direct off-ramps for bitUSD in contrast to bitCNY.

Personally, I'd leave bitUSD alone for now and focus on further improving bitCNY.

great initiative, as usual. The package seems slightly expensive but the offer is surprisingly extensive, too!

Stakeholder Proposals / Re: Proxy: xeroc
« on: June 24, 2019, 01:36:31 pm »
I now also vote for:

1.14.208 - Poll - BSIP59 - Keep MSSR of bitUSD as 1.02
1.14.206 - 2019-06-decentralized-partnership
1.14.205 - Poll - increase BTS holdings with accumulated market fee
1.14.204 - 201907-uccs-research-project
1.14.202 - BITCNY Opposing the Direct Destruction of Mortgage BTS
1.14.200 - [poll] BTS repurchase destruction proposal
1.14.199 - DEXBot WP3 - Liquidity for the DEX
1.14.198 - 201906-bitshares-mobile-app
1.14.190 - Article and Brand Marketing on Major News Websites
1.14.189 - 2nd Global Graphene Devcon in Shanghai

I am not even sure I understand the proposal.
For me, the accumulated fees have *always* been owned by the community and "profits" should be shared with BTS holders.
The only way to do that is for the accumulated to be sold for BTS in the markets. So the worker only makes something explicit that was implicitly agreed upon (IMHO)

I would think a lending market feature needs to provide a couple features to mitigate liquidity risks and legal risks.

* One option would be that the *committee* is the sole authority to enable lending on specific asset pairs
* Another option would be to allow the asset holders to enable assets for pairing and specify which pairs could be opened in case the pair has lending enabled too
* Also, i highly recommend to limit the amount of tokens that can be used for lending. This should also prevent a side of the orderbook from being wiped

Additionally, given that lending markets are not necessarily legal in some countries, the API as well as the UI implementation should have a flag that allows disabling that feature for a particular deployment. That of course does not directly affect the blockchain itself but allows businesses to operate bitshares nodes and wallets in juristictions that do not allow lending.

To clarify, the "bombastic" was really rather meant as "fantastic" .. just a little more .. the desired meaning got lost in translation.

Secondly, I do share some of DL's concerns but also don't see why this should become an issue for either BBF, or MOVE insitute. None of them technically "operate" the BitShares blockchain (and fact, it's unclear who really does). Similar to how the UI should IMHO be blocked to US IPs, the feature for lending should also be blocked from IPs of countries that prohibit lending. That at least should be clear to anyone hosting a frontend that allows using that particular feature of bitshares - but again, this is new territory from legal point of view and we simply don't know what regulators and law enforcement will think.
To me, it is quite easy to logically claim neither the owner of, nor of has anything to do with the offers of the bitshares blockchain (which runs entirely independent). It's like laming Mozilla for providing software to browse the dark net. Not their fault, really.
It is different though for those that "host" a wallet/ui. At least I can see problems come up to them for providing an "entrance".

Ultimately, we need to distinguish service offerings of from services offered by the BitShares Blockchain.
Also, the owner of has not sole authority over the BitShares Blockchain and couldn't even prevent them from doing things that might disagree with, like offering a lending market. Something similar could be said about CFDs which are to my knowledge prohibited in the U.S. too.

(not a lawyer)

wow ... bombastic proposal

+5% for transparency and accountability!

I, too, see a lot of value in sponsorship of decentralized. While I believe that 200k is a lot of money, people need to realize that the blockchain space
has left "hobby state" and moves towards corporate. Either we move with it, or we stay behind.

Given that the reserves has some $50m+ to fund growth, I would like to see this conference sponsored. In order to get the funds back in $-terms, all that's needed
is the price of BTS to grow by $0.00025. That's tiny, IMHO.

To add to this, I would also like to approve a proper marketing worker proposal, but so far, we don't have that many that want to actually **DO** it.

General Discussion / Re: market fee sharing setting for smartcoins
« on: June 19, 2019, 07:52:04 am »
LTM based referral is core code level infrastructure, changing it need change on core code, not easy and need time and I think we now need to work on the current design.
Actually, the 80% are a committee parameter that can be changed by committee. In fact, it's the 20% that is a parameter and it is called "network_percent_of_fee".

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ... 858