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 - litepresence

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
31
General Discussion / Re: [Committee] Fee schedule overhaul
« on: February 19, 2020, 05:42:57 pm »
Code: [Select]
* 1.10.57202 - to increase the force-settlement fee from 2.4 BTS to 1000 BTS (400x)
* 1.10.57236 - to increase the force-settlement fee from 2.4 BTS to 9.6 BTS (4x)

This is a logical fallacy called "false dilemma".

"Either we 4X or we make it stupid large 400X", therefore 4X must be reasonable!

The proposition seems silly, just on that front.

Wouldn't you think after 6 years we'd have reached a point where fees were somewhat near appropriate and we should be moving them if anything up or down maybe 10%, rather changing the rules of the game entirely by radically altering them 400% or 40,000%?

Secondly... any flat rate tax on trading activity invariably leads to "the rich get richer and the poor get poorer"

If market activity is to be taxed it should be taxed relative to its value.

In the real world when you buy a cheap hammer, the tax is 5% of its value; variable rate - not flat.  If you buy an expensive hydraulic jack hammer the tax is still 5% of its value.   A $10 hammer might have a $0.50 tax... whereas a $2000 jackhammer might have $100 tax.

If you applied the same $100 flat tax to $10 hammers as you do to jackhammers... nobody would buy hammers.   What you essentially do is price the product out of the market; choosing winners and losers in the economy.  It becomes a state command economy rather than a market economy.

Likewise, the same will occur in margin markets; you create a huge flat tax on margin lending the result will be only whales will take margin loans and only entrenched high volume MPA's will ever be loaned into existence.   Flat taxes are effectively regulatory capture abetting incumbent markets and wealthy traders.

Flat taxes on the blockchain should be reserved to prevent blockchain clutter of dust transactions, to reserve asset names and account names, to discourage the sending of bulk scam proposals, etc.    They should not be used to discourage legitimate market activity of smaller borrowers.

It is my suggestion that if you wish to raise revenue from defaulted loans, the rate should be percent based and effect all equally relative to their respective investment... just as market trading fees do.    Then, when massive loans default... surely the chain will profit without adversely discouraging other market activity along the way.

Likewise... if it can be accomplished that each individual UIA and MPA on the chain can have a percent based market fee.  Why can we not raise revenue for the chain itself by applying percent based market fees which benefit the public coffers on all market matched limit orders?

In short:

Flat fees, on a per item basis, should only be implemented to prevent blockchain clutter.
Variable rate fees, relative to transaction value, should be the taxation method of choice to raise revenue.

32
General Discussion / Re: ANN: HONEST Market Pegged Assets
« on: February 15, 2020, 08:56:00 pm »
All five HONEST MPA's have had "permissions" updated; H.XAG, H.XAU, H.BTC, H.USD are all now setup like H.CNY, meaning:

NO OWNER PERMISSIONS EXCEPT "MARKET FEE"

Apologies for the delay, we were discussing each of these internally; once you give them up they're gone forever.

33
Here are the weibo account followers data of tier 1 exchanges:
huobi's official weibo account 火币网 has 91.8K followers,  OKEX's official weibo account OKEX has 400K followers

the weibo accounts related MXC respectively  are MX-MXC抹茶交易所(155K followers) and MXC抹茶(85.5K followers

Anyway, HOPE u can support this worker

STFU you are SCAMMER.   Weibo account number do not prove shit.


34
Even BEOS community is against it but the leadership of BEOS being aware of it is supporting it because of a bigger picture which means favour votes back in return.

You hit the nail on the head.

BEOS support of MXC is nothing more than a $20,000 bribe to cnvote using community coffers.

BEOS team and CNVOTE, being the ONLY one's voting for this nonsense are  exposing themselves for the self serving scam cartel, which the real community and individual holders of Bitshares has long since suspected they are.

This is nothing more than exploitation:   An ongoing 51% plutocracy attack.   The rich voting to make themselves richer by inflating the monetary supply to send themselves more shares.

35
中文用户是弱势群体
[]
抹茶交易所和中国社区不该被如此的妖魔化。
[]
三观正直的人,那也请你给中国社区这次机会,帮助提案顺利完成。不胜感激!

如此明显的恶意是可耻的。 使用“华人社区”一词来推广您的计划,您应该为自己感到羞耻。 这表明绝对没有荣誉将“华人社区”一词与您的明显恶意联系起来。 这是一种针对自身利益的简单明了的骗局。 不要将您的同伴与之联系在一起。

36
But how can you prove it's famous and there are much more users?




37
Quote
According to Caijing, a financial news site:

“53% of MXC’s token projects reached their highest valuation on the first day of trading.

Indeed, more than 53% of the projects lost over 90% of that peak value
[]
Only very lucky investors—or, perhaps, people who were privy to the dumping schedule—made money.”

https://www.asktraders.com/news/bitcoin-may-have-gained-from-chinas-crackdown-on-fraudulent-exchanges/

38
Binance Top Referrers:

coinmarketcap... bittrex... hitbtc... coingecko... hmmm all top crypto industry sites!



MXC Top Referrers... hmmm never heard of them:



...but very interesting that the traffic is perfectly evenly split as if using a:
假网站流量生成器


lets go check out their top referrer and see if we would delete their post from our telegram community channels:



looks like clickbait scams to me... maybe you can try typing some of those other links into  your browser and see where you end up.

39
https://www.leaprate.com/cryptocurrency/blockchain/china-crackdown-on-crypto-exchanges-more-directed-than-reports-revealed/

Quote
It’s pretty well known in the west that China has been hammering crypto exchanges, again, in the worst crackdown since 2017. According to government mouthpiece Xinhua, more than 500 people have been arrested, and more than 300 crypto influencers’ social media accounts have been shuttered.

Sounds as if the government meant business, but the part of the news that never left the mainland was that government officials were not at war with “all” crypto exchanges. Many exchanges were actually immune from attack and have now benefited by the recent crackdown. Exchanges like Huobi, Okex, and even “unassociated” remnants of Binance that had left the country in 2017 were left unscathed.

What then was the Government trying to accomplish? It helps to acknowledge the inference behind

a favorite quote within crypto circles in China:
中国加密界最喜欢的报价:


You are not running
a good ponzi business
if you are not on MXC

你没跑
一个好的庞氏生意
如果您不在MXC上




hmm...

Quote
“the world’s leading assets trading platform.” Though the site is available in different languages and claims to be used by investors in 70 countries, it was believed to be especially popular with Chinese retail investors in the third- and fourth-tier cities, where investors are relatively unsophisticated.

This one exchange has also marketed what have been called “air tokens”, a hint at the true value of what the exchange was selling to its loyal fan base. In several “pump-and-dump” schemes, a series of tokens were heavily touted and sold to a public that gave its trust without even the slightest of due diligence. In one notorious case, the value of the VDS token skyrocketed 5,137% in two months, before crashing to near zero at its peak, when promoters withdrew their support and closed positions for enormous gains.

The press covered this and several other such fraudulent practices, where the exchange deliberately hyped a product, created FOMO, and then dropped the hammer:

"World Leading Crypto Exchange MXC distribution of users"


"Binance distribution of users"

40
I've stated in my first reply of this thread that MXC's volume is very fake.

Yes, we know it.

So what?



Dear BitShares Community
[]
divide 300,000 BTS and 20,000 MX

according to the proportion of trading volume.
according to the proportion of trading volume.
according to the proportion of trading volume.
according to the proportion of trading volume.
according to the proportion of trading volume.
according to the proportion of trading volume.
according to the proportion of trading volume.



41
Can you please provide a bit more detail for this worker how and when exactly the funds will be used?

they told you right here... maybe I can help translate:

Quote
After activating deposit function, users who deposit 1,000 BTS or above can divide 300,000 BTS and 20,000 MX according to the proportion of net deposition.

translated means:

Since nobody cares about or uses our shitcoin exchange... we'll just make sure that our buddies have the most BTS deposited on day of the 300,000 BTS air drop.   On that day, we'll give away all the worker BTS to our friends.

Quote
After activating trading function, users whose trading volume is 1,000 USDT or above can divide 300,000 BTS and 20,000 MX according to the proportion of trading volume.

translated means:

Our exchange volume is fake, as everyone knows.   Our cronies use bots to fake huge amounts of volume.  No real trader could compete because we grant our close friends zero fee trading for using bots to boost our fake volume.   On the day you give us worker BTS we'll be sure to tell our friends to turn their fake-volume zero-fee bots on overdrive to ensure all the funds are siphoned directly to our cronies.

42
每次出现重大价格变动:
在实际交易中,这会导致音量峰值。

让我们来看看:

Binance音量vs MCX音量

2019年中

真实音量
Binance BTC:USDT
绿色排行榜


假货量
MCX BTC:USDT
底部图表为红色


为什么在MCX的价格变动期间没有交易量激增?

欺诈!


Each time there is a major price movement,
at a REAL exchange... this results in a volume spike.

Lets take a look at Binance Volume vs MCX volume mid 2019

REAL VOLUME
Binance BTC:USDT  top in green


FAKE VOLUME
MCX BTC:USDT bottom in red




also, note the 20 day period in the middle, with nil volume, when their fake-volume wash-trading machine was apparently malfunctioning


I'm not an expert though.

I'm not an expert on coding blockchains, deciphering C++, or even properly versioning my github; there I humbly yield to individuals like yourself.   

When it comes to trading crypto on centralized exchanges however, I do consider myself very well versed... I've been here since mtgox days; I've had my money on dozens of different exchanges since then.  I've learned the hard way by personally losing 10's of thousands of dollars many times over due to various instances of exchange implosion, theft, and scam.  Before then, I had been trading for at least a decade in regulated stock and forex markets.  I also have an educational background in finance and mathematics.  I know price charts very well.

What I see in the image above, and what I hope my purple dots make clear to all others, is most certainly FRAUD.

我在上图中看到的并希望我的紫色圆点清晰可见的,无疑是欺诈。

43
Biased info is less valuable.

You have 4 institutions in the cryptospace who's claim to fame is the fact that they audit exchange volume... they do this for all exchanges globally... American, Chinese, Russian and all in between.  Its not a matter of racism against chinese companies, its a matter of quantifying raw data.

nomics, comaps, coingecko, and coinmarketcap's liquidity rankings are all in alignment for the most part on the true volume reported by top global exchanges.  Some of these are Chinese, some are US, some otherwise.   MXC is not among the top contenders by a long shot. 

mxc is not in the top 120 at nomics trust ranking
mxc is not in the top 120 at comaps trust ranking
mxc is not in the top 50 at coinmarketcap's liquidity; the bottom of which is less than 200k daily volume
mxc is not in the top 100 at coingecko's trust ranking
mxc is not even considered at hacken.io cyber security ranking

how many independent un-associated auditors does it take to make it clear that fake is fake?

if we're going expend resources on getting listed at exchanges we should be focusing on exchanges who's orderbooks have been AUDITED by sites who's stated purpose is to audit.

We should not be looking at rankings based on "internally reported volume" nor rankings based on "pay to be listed in rankings".

focus on the sites that matter... the one's with real volume:

binance, bittrex, bitfinex, poloniex, kraken, huobi, upbit, hitbtc, coinbase, bitflyer, bithumb, okex, bitstamp, gate.io, kucoin, bitmex, gemini

these, maybe a few others are the only sites matter ^

Almost every other exchange in cryptospace are various shades of bullshit.

All these other bottom tier junk exchanges are just a waste of resources.  They encourage BTS holders to involve themselves with shady institutions.  These shady exchanges ultimately turn out to be scams or go broke, get hacked, and leave BTS holders with nothing to show for their investments.

Under no circumstances should community worker funding go towards exchange listing at an exchange that is not in the top 40 at nomics, coingecko, comaps, and coinmarketcap liquidity rankings.

44
should be noted this is a shitcoin exchange

it is not listed in the coinmarketcap legitmate liquidity rankings here:

https://coinmarketcap.com/rankings/exchanges/liquidity/

not in hacken.io top 100 cyber security ranking; lowest rank is 4.3/10

https://hacken.io/research/researches-and-investigations/top-100-crypto-exchanges-according-to-the-cer-cyber-security-score-css/

ranked 129 in coingecko w/ trust level 3/10

https://www.coingecko.com/en/exchanges?page=2

D trust rating at comaps

https://www.comaps.io/exchange/mxc

Their reported daily volume is 1.8 BILLION USD.  Comaps says real volume is only 6 MILLION USD.

also its being promoted in telegram with this image



which is a clone of the coingecko rankings with the sole exception of MXC being magically ranked 10th instead of 129th.

45
General Discussion / Re: Quadratic Pegged Assets
« on: February 07, 2020, 06:31:00 pm »
There was a similar discussion in the past. Check asset SQUARED.CNY, CUBED.USD and etc. Or search in the forum.

Update:
found the link: https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=26322.0

sweet, will check them out!

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10