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 - binggo

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 159
676
中文 (Chinese) / Re: 做市/交易大赛第三阶段
« on: December 23, 2019, 02:58:50 am »
我建议理事会重新考虑交易大赛的规则,以更好的达到交易大赛的目的。

每个网关交易对的日成交量必须作为硬性衡量标准,不然现在ETH、EOS区直接就是薅羊毛状态,这些交易对基本属于无人区。

ETH/EOS与BTS的用户交叉状态太少,ETH有MAKERDAI做抵押杠杆,EOS也有相应的抵押杠杆,BTS作为定价资产根本无法吸引这部分用户,并且内盘用户基本对BTS/ETH,BTS/EOS这些交易对没有多少兴趣,不仅价格换算麻烦,而且外盘也没有有深度的交易对提供价格参考,即使提供奖励也难以吸引流量过去,基本都是薅羊毛的流量。

而且系统无法从这些交易对获得任何手续费的收入。

从17号到23号,基本快一周的时间,如果真的能够吸引人,这些交易对的交易量也基本能够达到,多的不说至少应该能够达到BTC或者usdt交易对的一半水平,而事实并非如此,我们每日在这些交易对发放的奖励基本都快是这些交易对日交易量的一半多了,这有多大的意义?!

--------------------------------------------
以日平均成交量做为基础衡量标准:
1. 可以防止死亡交易对被人薅羊毛的情况,想要薅羊毛的资金自己去把交易量维持起来;
2. 可以促进交易活跃度,避免现在躺着吃糖或者被动挨刀子的情况,想要定价权,活跃度必须大于外盘才行;
3. 可以节约大赛资金,防止低绩效,资金是系统出的,也要有考核,防止被过度薅羊毛,一分钱有一分钱的用处。

-----------------------------
日均成交量 = 抓取日内4小时成交量六次,取中值;
比如日均成交量基准为0.5M bts(3M bts日成交量也就火币的水平,以现在是价格计:30万人民币左右).
成交量统计:maker成交量与1000bts以上成交量(能统计最好,无法统计也无所谓)

奖励=基础奖励+成交量奖励

#基础奖励池各个交易对平均分配;
#成交量奖励池为总成交量奖励池。
#总日均成交量=各交易对日均成交量之和。

if
单交易对日均成交量 < 基准成交量,
基础奖励的拨付=基础奖励池*(日均成交量/基准成交量),不进行成交量奖励分配。

if
单交易对日均成交量 >= 基准成交量,
基础奖励池全额拨付。

if
单交易对日均成交量 >= 基准成交量,且此交易对基础奖励全部分配完毕,则进行成交量奖励分配计算,否则不进行成交量奖励分配:
单交易对成交量奖励 = 成交量奖励池*(交易对日均成交量/总日均成交量)*(1- 基准成交量/日均成交量).


#基础奖励分配:  挂单者/量提供者=98/2?或者只提供给挂单者。
#成交量奖励分配;挂单者/量提供者=90:10?
#挂单者奖励分配按照原挂单奖励规则。
-------------------------------------

成交量考核基准各个交易对为一样的水平。
当然会存在疯狂机器人刷了天量,但是却没有几个挂单量,而计算出的成交量奖励分配比却很高,因此为了预防这种情况,建议检测这个交易对基础奖励量的分配情况,如果基础奖励量未全部分配,成交量奖励不拨付,基础奖励量分配情况在大赛原始规则里。

没有量谁也别想躺尸拿奖励,要么有人出来提供成交量,想要薅更更多的羊毛,就动起来。

说白了,就是鼓励刷量,没有量的交易所在整个市场中基本没有什么地位,也吸引不了几个用户,而且DEX即使刷也是真实数据,而不是假数据。

--------------------------------
除了薅羊毛的,普通交易者谁会挨个交易对的乱窜找配对,还不够各种转账手续费的。



677
General Discussion / Re: I want to play a game
« on: December 22, 2019, 12:54:18 pm »
en, as i see, they like to sell bts more than hold. :P

But this is a interesting thought!

678
中文 (Chinese) / Re: BTS是不是一个通用的天然defi平台?
« on: December 22, 2019, 08:51:52 am »
以上提案太好了。

基于比特股在币圈不受待见的事实,搞跨链还是加入别人的体系比较好,多参与他们社区活动,有助于提升形象。自己搞的原子跨链什么的,除了自己人用,外人不会用,因为他们不信任比特股。

这个跨链是否会伤害比如网关及桥接的利益?我们是否需要顾及或者考虑他们的感受?

加入别人的体系,哪哪个合适?波卡还是阿童木?

679
网关是否也在下个版本更新?

680
中文 (Chinese) / Re: BTS是不是一个通用的天然defi平台?
« on: December 22, 2019, 01:16:31 am »
BSIP提案可能有遗漏,欢迎补充

681
中文 (Chinese) / Re: blocktrades 转账到 binance-bts-1数据统计
« on: December 22, 2019, 12:09:58 am »
ok...snowflake

682
中文 (Chinese) / BTS是不是一个通用的天然defi平台?
« on: December 21, 2019, 01:46:07 pm »
摆事实讲道理来说,BTS是一个通用的天然defi平台,自带交易所,自带抵押功能,就差一个能够跨链或者足够去信任的多签钱包接进来了。

但是,是什么阻碍了BTS成为一个通用defi平台?!

我大概讲下我个人认为的原因:

1.BTS还没有其它资产可以做抵押的功能; 更正:现在可以了!(不过多资产联合抵押还不行)


BSIP 45:https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/pull/110
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/80
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/78
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/100


2.没有足够易用的跨链或者原子交换功能来实现资产可以方便的进出BTS链; 虽然我们现在有了HTLC, core那边在年初也搞了一个与eth的去中心交易所的跨链,但是似乎只有bitcny可以出进,别的资产进bts链还没戏;

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/45


3.抵押机制的问题:
风险处置方没有风险储备金的持续来源;
爆仓机制的缺陷, 导致极易引发连环踩踏。

BSIP74: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/164
BSIP77: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/161
BSIP62: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/156
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/160
BSIP75: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/96
BSIP73: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/181
BSIP71: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/179
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182
BSIP 86: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/194

4.没有相对安全的借贷生息功能,也就是staking.

BSIP70: https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/170   这个是杠杆借贷,有风险性
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/182   这个似乎也不是那么安全。
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=29618.0  也不成熟

5.其它资产社区治理功能的缺失,也就是其它资产独立的投票功能。

https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/81

6. 其它金融工具dapp的方便建立:
BSIP72:https://github.com/nathanhourt/bsips/blob/master/bsip-0072.md
https://github.com/bitshares/bsips/issues/178


--------------


当然还有其它对功能补充维护的BSIP不在列。

683
Quote
The BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.

I think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?

Quote
We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.

So what is "that period"?

Quote
I have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.

I didn't understand how and why you got such conclusion? and become so angry and emotional? just as i show the data of blockchain?

Serious talk: i didn't care about you sold or not sold, i just show the data, i also show the data of others big sell.

"the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". is mean:
Someone did a worker and finished, then we will pay or pay it with the milestone, the whole funds will not controled by the worker, will controled by the committee/wittness with a multi-signature account, and will have the examiner to check the result of worker.

------------------
So let's focus the topic:

if this worker has been out of date(or not) and didn't have any actives for such a long time, the rest funds should burn to the reserve pool, the worker have the obligation to do that.
We had lost many funds like this way.
I'm actually not angry, I'm only trying to understand what problem you think exists and what you want to do to fix it. I'm still not sure, but I think you think that because we haven't done anything in a long time, or spent the money, that there is some problem.

So let me explain to you what the money was for: it was money that was to be spent conditionally, only if there was a problem that needed fixing. For a long time, I saw no such problem, so I simply kept the money unspent. Later, a core dev team emerged and began to work on new things and also make some fixes. So, with them around, I didn't see any need to spend the money. Instead I decided to hold it in case they lost their funding and them some problem arose. This is still my intent.

You also say "we had lost many funds this way". I have no idea what you meant by this, you need to be more specific about such instances. I understand that English is not your first language, but you need to say more when you make such statements. Without more information, I can only guess what you talk about.

Anyways, in the case of the funds I hold, nothing has been lost: if I don't spend it, it's very similar to if it's in the reserve pool. The big difference is that if I think it needs to be spent, I can make the decision without consent of current big voters (I got the consent from old big voters). You think I have the obligation to burn the funds, but I disagree. I think I have the obligation I took on when I made the proposal: to spend the funds if necessary to save the chain if some serious problem arises and otherwise to leave the funds alone. This is a safety net for the chain, and I think it's a good one.

Maybe you don't like this. But then, I don't like many decisions of the current big voters much either. But we both must abide by the rules of the blockchain. You can certainly argue for changing them, but I find your argument, to the extent I am able to understand it, very unpersuasive. If you want to make changes to the blockchain rules, there are much more serious issues to address than this, in my opinion. I guarantee you this money you're so worried about has had no impact on the price of BitShares, unlike the voting problems that BitShares is having which has damaged the price so much.

As you wish, do what you want to do.

684
中文 (Chinese) / Re: blocktrades 转账到 binance-bts-1数据统计
« on: December 21, 2019, 11:30:47 am »
我实在不想说这种投票拨款制度是多么的二!!!

无论是这700多万的沉睡资金还是core的说辞都是一样一样的, 不把这种worker制度彻底纠正过来, 把权力全部收到社区控制中, 以后还会有这么多的二货说辞.

资金的最终控制权必须在社区手中, 而不是worker手中.

任何github的控制权力不能越过社区及理事会/见证人的权利.

我是真的想说一句:发**克!!!

685
Sure, data is only data, and often people can come to the wrong conclusions about it. That's why I'm trying to explain very clearly how we operate, and what decisions I made, so that people won't come to the wrong conclusions.

Originally I was increasing my holdings in BTS because I was hopeful for the effect of BEOS and eventually I had acquired about 35m BTS. I forget what price I paid, probably mostly around 0.05.Then I saw the constant fighting in telegram (and to a lesser extent here) and decided to acquire no more, and sell any beyond this amount. And later, when I saw the pricefeed fix, I decided to sell all. If things had went differently for BTS, I would have been happy to acquire a lot more than 35m.

I even wrote some on Steem at the time about my concerns related to the pricefeed fixing: https://steemit.com/bitshares/@blocktrades/using-a-bitshares-decentralized-exchange-dex-market-for-bitusd-and-bitcny-pricefeeds

I also made some easier-to-read posts here about my concerns about the price fixing in this forum, IIRC, but I don't have links to those posts, but you can probably find them if you search.

Thanks,

I have read about your post on the Steem, even i didn't agree with it.

You still didn't understand something, things is not what you think about so easily, we have lost bitbtc, bitgold, bitsilver, almost lost bitusd, and bitEUR/bitkrw/bitMXN/bitSEK/bitGBP/bitAUD almos lost in few days ago, what's the source of the problem?

686
Quote
The BTS community has the power to take it back in the same way it can take back any funds: it can fork the chain. But it would be a stupid reason to fork the chain, IMO.

I think i have said very clearly, and you give this answer?

Quote
We would make a report once per month on what has been done during that period.

So what is "that period"?

Quote
I have no idea what you mean by "the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". What do you want to be redesigned? Do you mean that you want to be able to take back vested funds from a worker without a fork? And if so, why? Because you are unhappy that I sold my company's BTS? This has nothing to do with the funds for the worker. I would never sell off these funds except for the purpose I originally committed them to. This can easily be seen when you consider that I've held these funds even when bts was worth 0.40 USD and also that I still haven't sold them, despite selling all my company's BTS.

I didn't understand how and why you got such conclusion? and become so angry and emotional? just as i show the data of blockchain?

Serious talk: i didn't care about you sold or not sold, i just show the data, i also show the data of others big sell.

"the mechanism of the work pay will need to redesign". is mean:
Someone did a worker and finished, then we will pay or pay it with the milestone, the whole funds will not controled by the worker, will controled by the committee/wittness with a multi-signature account, and will have the examiner to check the result of worker.

------------------
So let's focus the topic:

if this worker has been out of date(or not) and didn't have any actives for such a long time, the rest funds should burn to the reserve pool, the worker have the obligation to do that.
We had lost many funds like this way.

687
Data is only data, people will get different information and give different conclusion from it.

688
Biteur is very small, and only have 1% offset, this is very dangerous for the debtor, if someone hold the half amount of biteur, then things will become worse.

689
I can get the information from the data, when i check the data, i have already know that.

This is the freedom of blocktrade, never mind.

690
We can check the situation of biteur..

Pages: 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 [46] 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 ... 159