[POLL] Possible committee actions to help with liquidity

[tonyk]

and of course you should sell/settle the bitAssets accumulated in the fee pool. What else should you do with them? Give them to BM to develop some mutually market unrelated pipe dream or to offset by a tiny fraction the group trap he had put himself into?

[Akado]

Then what other methods would you suggest to benefit shorts?

[tonyk]

You are bunch of *explicit* lead by *explicit* *explicit*.

And yes I am talking about the vocal majority on this forum (not the stakeholder majority). Just think twice when you post next time - "I am here for the long run, I do not care about the price." Cause when you say I do not care about the price, all you are actually saying is " I do not give a damn about liquidity"... and if so you wish, you will have a long road ahead of you... a long road of lack of liquidity...

I know your leader taught you that but it is a statement as wrong as it can get. The price matters A LOT... actually the price is one of the very few things that do matter!

And on a side note - the price... and the wrong take on It is why you are now considered the "group trappers of BM"... well that and his believe that spending and losing millions of dollars and not delivering a finished product is somehow something to be held against the funds providers... and completely 'failing' to see his part in the 'money being gone and no product to show for them'...

Could you share why the proposed seems like a bad/good idea to you? Why you agree/don't agree?

What will non-market measures do against the force of the market? Very little to nothing... fix the fundamental flow, the market desiring to short bitasset and sell them for profit is what is needed, not half-ass non market measures -> your leader should start caring about the price ...and not think "well the price does not matter I just price my worker-fees in USD convert them in BTS per day by multiplying by the whatever current price of BTS is...viola the price is just an insignificant variable for my purposes."

Start requiring market sensitive actions from your leader...hell start with not gladly accepting his arrogance in claiming you trapped him in non profitable position, when clearly his actions [failing to sell at high price the AGS BTC, yet paying taxes on that high price bases] and non delivery of finished product lead to millions of dollars down the drain in 2014, and the need for new money (bigger trap as he would say) and smaller stake for him due to the need to sell [apparently] the AGS BTS to cover costs.... start rejecting his brownie crumbles for being obedient to him, but rather demand he to finish what he has started (and I mean not finish it to the 75% done mark).... maker, percent fees, bond market/lending, prediction market....

Stop voting for proposals that will make the price go down... what is the F**ing stealth gonna do for your exchange and bitassets? Nothing other than delaying other feature. Are gonna be able to stealthly trade? NO! just the existing big group trappers will be able to claim their balances 'secretly'... the market does not care about your stash secret or otherwise. Nor do the new coming customers.

So basically what you're saying is we should benefit shorts right? Well, I agree that the collateral to short bitAssets into existence is too high and that puts people off...

Are there any reasons why decreasing collateral to 150% is a problem? It might be more risky, but still.. we need to find a balance.

No, the collateral is fine now.... at least this was fixed...miraculously as this might sound.

Just no one believes this train, called BTS, is headed in the right direction... Well, except the big mouths on the forum...but I am talking about people putting their money where their mouth is.... not 'the future is great... obedience and following directionless leadership is even greater ' plus fivers.

[Akado]

You are bunch of *explicit* lead by *explicit* *explicit*.

And yes I am talking about the vocal majority on this forum (not the stakeholder majority). Just think twice when you post next time - "I am here for the long run, I do not care about the price." Cause when you say I do not care about the price, all you are actually saying is " I do not give a damn about liquidity"... and if so you wish, you will have a long road ahead of you... a long road of lack of liquidity...

I know your leader taught you that but it is a statement as wrong as it can get. The price matters A LOT... actually the price is one of the very few things that do matter!

And on a side note - the price... and the wrong take on It is why you are now considered the "group trappers of BM"... well that and his believe that spending and losing millions of dollars and not delivering a finished product is somehow something to be held against the funds providers... and completely 'failing' to see his part in the 'money being gone and no product to show for them'...

Could you share why the proposed seems like a bad/good idea to you? Why you agree/don't agree?

What will non-market measures do against the force of the market? Very little to nothing... fix the fundamental flow, the market desiring to short bitasset and sell them for profit is what is needed, not half-ass non market measures -> your leader should start caring about the price ...and not think "well the price does not matter I just price my worker-fees in USD convert them in BTS per day by multiplying by the whatever current price of BTS is...viola the price is just an insignificant variable for my purposes."

Start requiring market sensitive actions from your leader...hell start with not gladly accepting his arrogance in claiming you trapped him in non profitable position, when clearly his actions [failing to sell at high price the AGS BTC, yet paying taxes on that high price bases] and non delivery of finished product lead to millions of dollars down the drain in 2014, and the need for new money (bigger trap as he would say) and smaller stake for him due to the need to sell [apparently] the AGS BTS to cover costs.... start rejecting his brownie crumbles for being obedient to him, but rather demand he to finish what he has started (and I mean not finish it to the 75% done mark).... maker, percent fees, bond market/lending, prediction market....

Stop voting for proposals that will make the price go down... what is the F**ing stealth gonna do for your exchange and bitassets? Nothing other than delaying other feature. Are gonna be able to stealthly trade? NO! just the existing big group trappers will be able to claim their balances 'secretly'... the market does not care about your stash secret or otherwise. Nor do the new coming customers.

So basically what you're saying is we should benefit shorts right? Well, I agree that the collateral to short bitAssets into existence is too high and that puts people off...

Are there any reasons why decreasing collateral to 150% is a problem? It might be more risky, but still.. we need to find a balance.

[tonyk]

You are bunch of *explicit* lead by *explicit* *explicit*.

And yes I am talking about the vocal majority on this forum (not the stakeholder majority). Just think twice when you post next time - "I am here for the long run, I do not care about the price." Cause when you say I do not care about the price, all you are actually saying is " I do not give a damn about liquidity"... and if so you wish, you will have a long road ahead of you... a long road of lack of liquidity...

I know your leader taught you that but it is a statement as wrong as it can get. The price matters A LOT... actually the price is one of the very few things that do matter!

And on a side note - the price... and the wrong take on It is why you are now considered the "group trappers of BM"... well that and his believe that spending and losing millions of dollars and not delivering a finished product is somehow something to be held against the funds providers... and completely 'failing' to see his part in the 'money being gone and no product to show for them'...

Could you share why the proposed seems like a bad/good idea to you? Why you agree/don't agree?

What will non-market measures do against the force of the market? Very little to nothing... fix the fundamental flow, the market desiring to short bitasset and sell them for profit is what is needed, not half-ass non market measures -> your leader should start caring about the price ...and not think "well the price does not matter I just price my worker-fees in USD convert them in BTS per day by multiplying by the whatever current price of BTS is...viola the price is just an insignificant variable for my purposes."

Start requiring market sensitive actions from your leader...hell start with not gladly accepting his arrogance in claiming you trapped him in non profitable position, when clearly his actions [failing to sell at high price the AGS BTC, yet paying taxes on that high price bases] and non delivery of finished product lead to millions of dollars down the drain in 2014, and the need for new money (bigger trap as he would say) and smaller stake for him due to the need to sell [apparently] the AGS BTS to cover costs.... start rejecting his brownie crumbles for being obedient to him, but rather demand he to finish what he has started (and I mean not finish it to the 75% done mark).... maker, percent fees, bond market/lending, prediction market....

Stop voting for proposals that will make the price go down... what is the F**ing stealth gonna do for your exchange and bitassets? Nothing other than delaying other feature. Are gonna be able to stealthly trade? NO! just the existing big group trappers will be able to claim their balances 'secretly'... the market does not care about your stash secret or otherwise. Nor do the new coming customers.

[Akado]

You are bunch of *explicit* lead by *explicit* *explicit*.

And yes I am talking about the vocal majority on this forum (not the stakeholder majority). Just think twice when you post next time - "I am here for the long run, I do not care about the price." Cause when you say I do not care about the price, all you are actually saying is " I do not give a damn about liquidity"... and if so you wish, you will have a long road ahead of you... a long road of lack of liquidity...

I know your leader taught you that but it is a statement as wrong as it can get. The price matters A LOT... actually the price is one of the very few things that do matter!

And on a side note - the price... and the wrong take on It is why you are now considered the "group trappers of BM"... well that and his believe that spending and losing millions of dollars and not delivering a finished product is somehow something to be held against the funds providers... and completely 'failing' to see his part in the 'money being gone and no product to show for them'...

Could you share why the proposed seems like a bad/good idea to you? Why you agree/don't agree?

[tonyk]

You are bunch of *explicit* lead by *explicit* *explicit*.

And yes I am talking about the vocal majority on this forum (not the stakeholder majority). Just think twice when you post next time - "I am here for the long run, I do not care about the price." Cause when you say I do not care about the price, all you are actually saying is " I do not give a damn about liquidity"... and if so you wish, you will have a long road ahead of you... a long road of lack of liquidity...

I know your leader taught you that but it is a statement as wrong as it can get. The price matters A LOT... actually the price is one of the very few things that do matter!

And on a side note - the price... and the wrong take on It is why you are now considered the "group trappers of BM"... well that and his believe that spending and losing millions of dollars and not delivering a finished product is somehow something to be held against the funds providers... and completely 'failing' to see his part in the 'money being gone and no product to show for them'...

[Akado]

I see two drawbacks to this proposal (basically option 3 with greater detail)

First of all is economics.  We are not completely sure what the effect on the peg will be of adding all of these assets.  Adding so much sell pressure could push the price below the peg.  I think this could largely be alleviated by adding the liquidity slowly in say chunks of 1-5k uUSD watching the results, and keeping enough bts in the committee account to purchase back USD and close the short if needed.  To help prevent manipulation, or accusations of manipulation it would be best if our targets, and decision points were spelled out ahead of time.

Second is politics.  Adding this kind of funding to the committee account makes it a much greater target for coercion or collusion. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, these are just a couple of things we need to be careful about.  I am sure there are other risks as well.

Can't we just settle if the price is below feed? That's instant profit and a good enough incentive not to get it below feed.

[puppies]

First of all is economics.  We are not completely sure what the effect on the peg will be of adding all of these assets.

None? You cannot change the external price of a bitAsset by buying or selling it - you have to buy/sell an IOU of the real thing to do that.

I'm not talking about changing the feed price of USD vs bts.  I'm talking about how close the actual price measured by transactions on the dex, and external exchanges is to that feed price. 

[Samupaha]

The bitassets created would get sold on the market at say feed price +7% and then the bts from that sale returned to the reserve pool or fee pool.

A committee run account would have create these new bitassets and once created and sold that account would have 300% collateral positions for the 100% bitassets it created.

On telegram with @mindplux @iHashFury  we discussed the idea of a committee controlled account which could create  $50,000 bitUSD and then destroying the private key for that committee controlled account.

This would create a good base supply of bitusd to jumpstart the dex and get it moving.  If a worker proposal wasn't continuous and  ended it would still be providing liquidty because there would be more bitassets sloshing around in the system in general.

However! those 300% ($150000) worth of BTS would be lost forever. so the equivalent of a burn really. 

You could offset this loss/burn by adding a recurring payment from the committe controlled account that gets deleted so that any bts from forced settlements in the committee account would be returned to the reserve pool.

I think this idea could make sense as a one hit or injection of liquidity to the dex.

I'm not very enthusiastic about burn workers in general, but if we are going to have one, this is the best option presented so far. Of course it's best to first create some MPA's, sold them on the exchange and then burn the BTS, rather than burn the BTS immediately without any additional benefits.

[monsterer]

First of all is economics.  We are not completely sure what the effect on the peg will be of adding all of these assets.

None? You cannot change the external price of a bitAsset by buying or selling it - you have to buy/sell an IOU of the real thing to do that.

[puppies]

I see two drawbacks to this proposal (basically option 3 with greater detail)

First of all is economics.  We are not completely sure what the effect on the peg will be of adding all of these assets.  Adding so much sell pressure could push the price below the peg.  I think this could largely be alleviated by adding the liquidity slowly in say chunks of 1-5k uUSD watching the results, and keeping enough bts in the committee account to purchase back USD and close the short if needed.  To help prevent manipulation, or accusations of manipulation it would be best if our targets, and decision points were spelled out ahead of time.

Second is politics.  Adding this kind of funding to the committee account makes it a much greater target for coercion or collusion. 

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it, these are just a couple of things we need to be careful about.  I am sure there are other risks as well.

[Akado]

So I guess it's up to the community to decide if it's worth to lock 150k for ever and get a good amount of liquidity vs loosing 150k for future development. It's like short term vs long term. Or what could the community spend those 150k on that could be better than 50k bitUSD and a tighter peg. Would like to see a thread for a proposal like that to know people's opinions.

$150,000 locked up will not put any sell pressure on the bts price unlike if we paid it to a developer for salary.

With recurring bts payments setup back to the reserve pool set up these bts will be returned back over time.

So that way we could "boost" liquidity and as it gains traction over time, we could get those 150k back over time and the markets (theoretically) would continue to stay liquid? Or even move on to other market pairs? Sounds good.

Would like to hear more people's opinion on this in case there are some drawbacks I'm not seeing here.

[JonnyB]

So I guess it's up to the community to decide if it's worth to lock 150k for ever and get a good amount of liquidity vs loosing 150k for future development. It's like short term vs long term. Or what could the community spend those 150k on that could be better than 50k bitUSD and a tighter peg. Would like to see a thread for a proposal like that to know people's opinions.

$150,000 locked up will not put any sell pressure on the bts price unlike if we paid it to a developer for salary.

With recurring bts payments setup back to the reserve pool set up these bts will be returned back over time.

[Akado]

So I guess it's up to the community to decide if it's worth to lock 150k for ever and get a good amount of liquidity vs loosing 150k for future development. It's like short term vs long term. Or what could the community spend those 150k on that could be better than 50k bitUSD and a tighter peg. Would like to see a thread for a proposal like that to know people's opinions.