Thanks for the warm welcome back.
To answer a few questions:
The only thing that concerns me is it seems that you don't have a clear economy-related background, so possibly an average Joe (who don't understand computer science nor game theory nor economy) won't believe you nor your research results.
Messaging to average Joes is one of my favorite things to do -- check out my
"Game Theory of Steem" series I published on Steemit a couple years back. As to my background, I actually do have training in economic thinking -- more than most computer science/engineering people, and one of my key research areas is developing algorithmic
incentive mechanisms to influence human behavior. The topic of MPA/bitassets is fundamentally interdisciplinary, so anyone working on it needs access to a range of background material, and this is something I bring. In addition, the PhD student who will likely be working on the project is a software engineer with trading experience, so he brings some good relevant diversity as well.
When talking about economy, bitAsset is impacted by the impossible trinity theory. More discussions are linked below:
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=27203.msg322852#msg322852
https://bitsharestalk.org/index.php?topic=11946.0
Looking forward to your inputs about this.
Yes, I'm aware of the impossible trinity and I'm looking forward to formalizing that kind of concept for bitassets in particular. More about my thoughts on this in the future.
Good to see you are preparing to do deep research on bitAsset, it is very necessary indeed. However, is there any specific target? or we can we expect from your future research?
You can find a very brief summary of the
project goals here. In a nutshell, we'll do two things:
- We'll ask BTS-specific questions: How should MSSR be selected? Could dynamic collateral requirements be helpful? What is the right way to eliminate global settlement as an undercollateralization safety mechanism?
- We'll ask broader price-stable-asset questions, focusing on the fundamental design tradeoffs in the space. My favorite question here concerns risk: there is a complex interplay between the behavior of bitasset shorts and the risk assumed by bitasset longs. The system can only work if the shorts assume most of the longs' risk, and yet in BTS bear markets, the shorts want to assume as little of that risk as possible. However, if the shorts offload the risk back to the longs, then the bitasset may un-peg and thus lose its value proposition, which in turn harms the value of BTS, ultimately hurting the shorts as well. Thus, the system must be designed so that this long-term risk is somehow directly "priced in" to the shorts' incentives.
Will 'privatized' mpa (non committee owned smartcoins) be in scope? Or just normal FIAT pegged MPA?
You're talking about ones like HERO and HERTZ? Insofar as they're governed by the same mechanisms that govern the committee-managed smartcoins, this project will talk about the private MPAs as well.
This is awesome. On a similar note, I have been research myself into this regarding the evolution of Bitshares from when the peg first broke in 2014 August. Can someone point out or know by memory how the orgininal Bitshares X worked when the peg was first introduced? I always felt that was the most viable model for stablecoins. Not sure why Bytemaster went off of it.
You're talking about the original oracle-free mechanism? I don't recall the specifics, but one of the reasons Dan abandoned it was that it allowed for large deviations from the peg which resulted directly from BTS price swings. In principle, those deviations would eventually correct themselves, but it wasn't meeting the goals of accurate price-pegging. There was certainly some controversy over the change and allegations that it wasn't fully tested.
Topic: Developing a bitAsset research program (Read 14977 times)
