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 - gloine

Pages: [1]
1
General Discussion / Re: bitUSD black swan possiblity
« on: September 15, 2017, 11:39:26 pm »
Hi guys,

In my opinion, liquidity providers should be regarded as workers and compensated properly if we don't want to do a bail out and maintain the stability at the same time. Issuing bitUSD with collateral and adjusting it according to the market change seems to be a pretty good amount of work, with accompanying risks.

I think BIP 19 and 20 should be revised so that we explicitly reward market makers. There is no need to reward BTS holders unless they work for the market. For me, it seems the best way is to add an automatic mechanism to let an account lock its asset for a given period of time, always issue the maximum amount of bitUSD and sell/buy at the pegged price, and reward them a certain portion of fee income (raise until there are enough participants for liquidity). My gut feeling is that we need to spend 50% of the income to maintain liquidity.

EDITED: In case of black swan events despite of this mechanism, market makers would be removed one by one since they don't have enough collaterals for the MPA assets they issue (and force-settled, losing a lot of money after the market goes back to normal). If there remains the last market maker, the reward would be substantial since 50% of all the fees for bitUSD will belong to her. This would encourage market makers quickly lock more assets during the period to sustain the event. The minimum locking period should be at least one day, and the reward should increase exponentially as the locking period increases.

Thanks,
Gloine

2
General Discussion / Re: Market pegged assets
« on: August 31, 2017, 08:22:44 am »

Thank you for the answer! If this is the case, if everybody expects that bitUSD will be strong against BTS for a while, nobody will issue bitUSD and the market will suffer from the lack of liquidity. Then the market will respond and the price of bitUSD will become more expensive up the point the short positions become profitable, which could be critical for bitUSD based payment services. Is my understanding correct?

Pretty much correct. Many MPAs, including bitUSD, have liquidity issues because people hesitate to short them. Right now bitUSD is traded about 4% above the peg, which indicates a deficit (it used to be worse than this in the past). The way to bring it back to peg is to issue and sell more, if you are brave enough.

Thank you for sharing the knowledge! I really appreciate it.

Now I think there should be a mechanism to reward 'market maker's to achieve the original goal of market pegged assets. I have read bsip 19 and 20, and those may be the best way to handle this problem at the moment. However it may be better to explicitly state those are rather rewards for providing liquidity than dividends...

Also, it may be better to have a mechanism to 'lock in' the assets for a fixed period and receive a better reward.

Anyway, I will just wait for bsip 19 and 20 for now!

Regards,
Gloine

3
General Discussion / Re: Market pegged assets
« on: August 30, 2017, 03:00:59 pm »
If you are long on USD - you buy bitUSD. If you are short on USD - you issue and sell bitUSD.

In order for you to be able to buy bitUSD, somebody else have to issue them and offer for sale. This is a two-party contract.

Thank you for the answer! If this is the case, if everybody expects that bitUSD will be strong against BTS for a while, nobody will issue bitUSD and the market will suffer from the lack of liquidity. Then the market will respond and the price of bitUSD will become more expensive up the point the short positions become profitable, which could be critical for bitUSD based payment services. Is my understanding correct?

4
General Discussion / Market pegged assets
« on: August 30, 2017, 01:49:35 pm »
Hi all,

Here is a noob question. What is the benefit of issuing market pegged assets such as bitUSD using my BTS as a collateral? From the documents, it sounds like I need to lock my assets which is 200% worth of what I get, worry about adjusting my collaterals to respond to the market, and gain nothing eventually. It sounds much better to just buy the bitUSD others have issued than issuing my own. Am I missing something?  :(

Thanks,
Gloine

5
Hi, I am a noob but just curious. Why are other bitAssets okay? Didn't they experience a black swan event?

6
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 08:50:16 pm »
It is clear to us that we cannot change ProtoShares even though we believe it would have been a better deal for everyone but the botnets.   

Based upon the feedback you all have provided at our request we will leave ProtoShares and its social contract as-is. 

In the mean time we are still looking for ways to crowd fund development of new DACs through a concept similar to Angel Shares.   

We welcome any constructive suggestions.

I bought into the PTS idea because the concepts of merged mining, multiple blockchains, blockchain security, DACs and its attraction to little miners. Now if mining is taken away from the picture, the bulk of it seems to be gone.

Would the merged mining idea still be valid after this discussion? Is bitshares going to be a PoW based system as originally designed in your paper or changed to a PoS based system?

In my opinion, the implementation being done as expected should be regarded as one of the social contracts here.

7
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 02:02:05 pm »
Founders who provide capital provide greater service and take greater risk.  They hold for long term value without any restraints on their selling or they wouldn't invest to begin with.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Even though founders put in a considerable amount of capital, they are not supposed to sell out in a short term. If they really need more initial capital for further growth, I believe they should premine a certain amount to a public key and announce that it would be used for further development. The process should be transparent so that everyone knows how the money is used for the project.

8
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 01:52:44 pm »
Premining only applies to those who get something for nothing.  Why shouldn't we require pts holders who mined  from dumping for 3 years.  Based upon earlier arguments against vesting it seems that some think miners have a right to dump for a profit but no one else.

Anyone who buys with capital should be allowed to sell at any time.  We are not advocating invictus get free shares that we could dump on the market After launch.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So you mean it's unfair that miners are allowed to sell and founders are not? Miners come for short term service and profit and founders believe in long term vision.

Founders can always participate in mining to provide the service for operation and pursue short-term profit, too.


9
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 01:29:23 pm »
Great feedbacks from community which is a driving force of our goal.

DAC is the DNA of 3i indeed, and one of our task is to help DACs obtain the initial funding to get start with DAC models in different industries simultaneously.

There are three layers of independent value proposition we could be classified as 1>3i. 2> existing PTS shareholders. 3> DAC founders and operators.  We shall make right decision with community together without mixing our roles or interests.

The question is that which one of the founding methods is the best for building longtime and healthier ecosystem.

3i will be succeed ONLY AND ONLY IF DACs are successful, THEN PTS shareholders will have enjoyed higher return on ROI over time.

How could we help DAC startups with initial funding?  We are open for any comments and suggestions.

Here goes my two cents...

Premining is one very transparent and valid option to give incentive to founding members as long as the public keys are known to the community and Invictus guarantees that there would be no transactions from those public keys for at least three years. There could be a public key for initial capital, too. It would be great if there would be a way to force this, e.g. the public keys are built into DAC clients so that the transactions from those public keys are allowed exactly three years from the launch of the service.

Also, there should be some way to take control of those keys back from founding members if they leave without satisfying the role. To achieve this, simply locking the transactions for three years would not be sufficient. There should be some hidden keys which are kept by Invictus and not known to the founding members and this mechanism should be baked into the client.

And there would be many other fancy options like adjustable vesting schedule and so on, to attract creative minds.

Regarding PoS, separating shareholders and employees would be important for the long term stability. Please note that shareholders don't live forever and they are not obliged to operate the system. The best way would be designing the system that exploits the maximum out of PoW workers' computing power.

Regards,
Gloine

10
General Discussion / Re: Angel Shares Feedback Requested
« on: December 15, 2013, 12:01:57 pm »
I am very new here but please state my opinion.

A limited number of shareholders would not protect you from future obstacles. You may gain a few million dollars for your initial development, but those who don't have the shares would turn to your enemies, with hundreds of millions of dollars to attack you in various ways.

Letting them take the portions as much as they want would let them help you in some way. You may feel like you (and initial participants) are losing control and those who have money are taking most of the gains, but please face it. They are already gaining everything and exploiting those with lesser resources.

You are making an environment where your gain is linear to the resources you have, however small you have. This thing being done in a transparent way is good enough for diligent people to grow up and smart people to innovate. This is really hard since without enough resources, you cannot even purchase a bitcoin from the exchange since they don't have credit cards and bank accounts.

And please think about whether people in Proof-of-Stake systems would invest enough resources to actually run the system. You need a really good incentive system to achieve this. Especially those with small stakes would not be able to run servers since they would not profit from doing that.


Regards,
Gloine

11
Hi,

I want to point out one aspect of Proof-of-Stake system. It is vulnerable to physical attacks on major shareholders.

You can easily control the system by hacking or spoofing the computers of major shareholders, or just bringing a gun to their home and threatening them to do transactions on the attacker's behalf. In case of PoW, the damage is limited to the attacked person only, but in case of PoS, the whole network is damaged.

So unless major shareholders are rich enough to defend all the physical attacks on themselves (which could be true for crypto-coins but not for DACs), it would be safer to rely on PoW systems to protect the network. In other words, those who 'work' for the network should be distributed and 'replaceable', unlike shareholders.

On a side note, PeerCoin has a vesting period of 30 days and a maximum coin age of 60 days (numbers could have been changed, but it does have them).

Regards,
Gloine

Pages: [1]