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 - JohnR

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6
1
Good luck with this endeavor. Hope you can champion Graphene technology to new audiences.

2
Given one of the reasons for returning to 1% offset is to return it to same status as the others, presumably there was a reason to deviate in the past.

Bitcrab would you please comment on those conditions generally and if you believe they are unlikely to return please comment on why? Thank you.

3
Nice looking application here. Please keep it up and I hope the community here supports you.

Regarding the BEET integration.. Does the wallet not already store private keys? What features can BEET add that stored keys does not already?

4
Does this utilize vesting balances as referrals currently do? Note vesting balances are currently only denominated in BTS, not bitCNY or bitUSD.

5
I think a sponsorship similar to last year's would be a good investment for the DAC. I think it's good for BTS to have a sponsorship presence in the three largest markets of BTS holders (Europe, East Asia, North America).

Conference sponsorship is a type of marketing. Though maybe people are thinking we should market more to non-crypto users. That will be tough to get people from no crypto to BTS. The natural progression for most people is no crypto - BTC - BTS.


6
General Discussion / Re: Developing a bitAsset research program
« on: June 02, 2019, 09:16:41 pm »

In auction theory there is a bizarre fact called the "revenue equivalence theorem," which basically says that every possible auction mechanism earns the same revenue on average unless it's a deliberately stupid mechanism (such as awarding the object completely at random). The reason this is true is that if you have an auction that normally earns X revenue, and then you change some particulars of your auction mechanism to try to get more revenue out of it, the bidders will adjust their bids accordingly and once they equilibrate you'll still only get X revenue.


Do you think the revenue equivalence theorem applies between Dutch and double continuous auctions (where both buyers and sellers post bids to exchange)?

Do you have any thoughts on Gnosis' new market structure?

Thanks for your interest. BTS can benefit a lot from formal research and peer-review.

7
中文(Chinese) / Re: 比特股社区“百城百店”
« on: June 02, 2019, 03:21:11 pm »
Thank you for this message. It sounds like bitstocks is doing great things. Congratulations on your success.

Going to review this again with a translation. (to be edited)

8
General Discussion / Re: Developing a bitAsset research program
« on: April 28, 2019, 09:54:46 pm »
Thanks for the post and thoughtful proposal. Academic/institutional peer review is important for BitShares development credibility.

I also echo abit and ripplexiaoshan - there is abundant arm-chair economic analysis surrounding bitassets now - where would you focus your work specifically?

Also "Doc Brown", not lost on me.

9
Transfer on-chain confirmed. Committee proposed tx. -signed-

7\ Get funded from account "smartcoin-marketing". This account is multisignatured by the committee.(two days)

I checked on-chain, the payout of that has already happen. The description of that worker is quite clear when bounty payments should happen.

@ripplexiaoshan and at all committee members: Can you please comment on that?

10
I have known Valera only recently but I believe he is valuable to the BTS stakeholders. He is a competent developer with creative ideas. Also his contribution through 'hack the dex' demonstrate his commitment to keeping the BTS network secure.

11
General Discussion / Re: New BTC Gateway - XOVBTC 0.1% fee
« on: February 05, 2019, 06:30:31 pm »
Glad to see another BTC gateway operator. More competition. Please do continue to update on your progress.

12
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« on: December 17, 2018, 12:15:06 pm »
Understood. Then I agree with the schedule. And if the smart tech guys tell me @xeroc's scripts work accurately then I support.

13
Stakeholder Proposals / Re: [Fee Schedule Proposal] - New fee schedule
« on: December 17, 2018, 11:49:44 am »
Good idea to put it in USD terms for people to compare apples and oranges.

What ratio will you use to convert to bts fees when approved?

14
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 14, 2018, 02:30:25 am »
Margin call is initiated by debt holders maintaining poor ratios; forced settlement is initiated by bitUSD equity holders.

The difference may be small to some but as I see it, if the ecosystem is well collateralized and there is no force settlement then it's possible that no user can get BTS autonomously.  The only option is to trade it for BTS.  Maybe that is the way of the future, but there will be a lot of old hodlers who will be suspicious that we are limiting choice.

Maybe this is just an unnecessary rabbit hole.. By "incentivize a run on bitUSD" I mean encourage a bank run where bitUSD is the bank.  In crisis deposit holders want their money out of banks.  When this happens at one time banks go bankrupt.  So by a run on bitUSD I mean a scenario when users trade en masse to BTS and turn around and sell to another crypto like BTC.  If BTS were to experience a chronic low price maybe it would not happen quite like this.  Still thinking about it.  To be honest I don't know exactly how it would play out.

15
General Discussion / Re: Announcement on BSIP42 relevant actions
« on: October 13, 2018, 02:46:47 pm »
I read the entire thread and of course it is possible I misunderstood you.

* A trader who really wants to convert his bitUSD to BTS doesn't care where he will get the BTS,
  1) the BTS can come from other traders who are selling BTS for bitUSD
  2) the BTS can come from bitUSD debt positions who has less than required collateral ratio (margin calls)
  3) the BTS can come from bitUSD debt positions who has least collateral ratio in the system (force settlements)

You very clearly laid out the three ways for bitUSD holders to get BTS today correct?  And disabling force settlement would eliminate option 3 correct?  What I am trying to point out is that both option 1 and 2 require something from another party (posting a limit order in 1 & holding an undercollateralized position in 2).  In this way it chips away at the trust-less nature of bitUSD.  Not entirely, but recognize it does injects a level of trust in another party.  The community can elect to go this route of course, I would be interested to see how a vote ended up on this front.  You changed your mind on this issue, so maybe my thinking is less evolved.  I'm definitely open to it but rather than disabling maybe it would be better to make it an advanced feature so newbies don't stumble into it.  This would allow us to still claim that bitUSD is 'trust-less'.


Your comment "margin call (which only happens in periods of stress/when the collateral is at its lowest value" is wrong, because, with BSIP42 or another MCR-based approach, margin calls can happen at any time as long as there is more demand of selling bitUSD for BTS than buying bitUSD with BTS.


You're right, this was too strong of a statement.  I did not mean to imply it is or would be a rare event.  But surely you agree that the situation you described in response is one where the value of BTS is lower and/or decreasing.  One concern is if the platform only allows bitUSD holders to get their BTS when price of BTS is decreasing this may incentivize a run on bitUSD.


Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6