Agree with this 100%. The data was out for like half a year! And now I feel like this was some last-minute injection.
Doesn’t the contract shutdown after 6 months and must be activated again by the bakers?
Why dont give it a try and see if this works?
It’s a question of whether the bakers make a decision or don’t
This is simply not true. tzbtc is not bitcoin. you can’t swap it without KYC.
Right now its liquidity is Dexter 4,488.18 XTZ + 0.4729 tzBTC, Quipu 15671.470264 XTZ + 1.64746452 tzBTC
Still it might be our best choise in terms of expected liquidity if some entities are happy to go through KYC and LP
4 Likes
Although it’s true that only 94% of the block reward will go to the bakers, in effect they are not receiving less than before (besides the increased inflation that affects everyone in the ecosystem), as the block reward is increased for LB. I thus do not see this point as problematic at all.
I guess, i’ll vote yay at the end.
(besides the increased inflation that affects everyone in the ecosystem)
I hope the trading fee will be enough to offset diluting inflation, or even burning more that is being printed, so we actually get some deflation. And maybe in the future, when demand for trading the XTZ/tzBTC pair is high, we can even increase the trading fee to increase deflation. And make that one of our preferred deflationary mechanisms.
Unrelated to liquidity baking. To make TEZ a SoV, we can also look for other methods for burning TEZ. For example, Cross chain relays between Ethereum and Tezos that burns TEZ every time assets (including NFT’s) are transferred from one chain to the other, that could be another deflationary mechanism
That should be our main focus, make TEZ A SoV, but always without affecting the baker incentives of running a baking node.
3 Likes
I have never claimed you were arguing against LB, there is nothing in what I’ve written that suggests I think that, but you keep repeating it to me. Superficially this looks like “explaining your position” but de facto it’s a way to misrepresent mine.
The asset was proposed and debated months ago on Tezos Agora. Comments on it were literally requested back in January. It’s disingenuous to represent this as a top down choice.
The proposal can also be copied and submitted with a different asset, the proposal can also be rejected. This is not an imposition by any stretch of the imagination.
It’s not tightly coupled the patches are largely orthogonal. But even then, the point of proposals is not primarily as a choosing procedure but as a ratification procedure. It simply does not scale to try and poll people with proposals. This is why the tzip process exists, this is why Tezos Agora exists in the first place, this is why feedback on the whole proposal, including the choice of tzBTC was actively sought for the past five months.
It’s unrealistic to assume the proposal phase is an adequate venue for polling. It exists largely in case irreconcilable differences between competing proposals exist, or in case there’s no clear consensus that a proposal is acceptable, it’s not a poll.
Every proposal is opinionated, there’s no precedent here. If you don’t like the proposal, make another one, you have more than enough technical know-how to do so.
On another note: you could easily have come out and said: oops, not enough people participated in the tzip process, let’s have competing proposals for those who missed this. You chose instead to present this as an ominous, power-consolidating, precedent-setting move by “the powers that be”.
By creating this confrontational framing, you’ve engineered a no-win situation where the development teams involved in this either don’t inject new proposals and are thus insensitive to “the demands of the community” (even though comments on the choice of assets were requested for the past 5 months), or they do, in which case they give the appearance that they were up to something nefarious until you bravely called them up on it. So if you think these proposals are relevant, inject them.
8 Likes
Your point about the availability (or lack thereof) of TzBTC is the main issue I have with with the proposal, because as far as I can tell, the only people who can purchase a lot of it at this time are non-U.S. persons who are willing to undergo KYC.
2 Likes
amen to this
I read the entire thread until here, flabbergasted…
1 Like
It’s public information, that TF participated in the Series A of Bitcoin Suisse. Are you asking because you know or because you don’t know?
No there are no conflict of interests. The tiny stake that TF has in Bitcoin Suisse, the limited role that Bitcoin Suisse has in tzBTC, the small amount of fees that may be collected as a part of this, and the limited margin on top of those fees make up for a total financial incentive on the order of the cost of a beer.
But TF also has a small stake in Taurus, so maybe two beers?
The other assets you mentioned are linked to teams which received grants from TF.
4 Likes
Why is 2.5 XTZ per block going to Liquidity Baking for ONE pair? Is that not $5 million just for one pair over six months?
2.5 XTZ every 30 seconds is a lot.
I’ll also ask once again is the TF planning to participate in liquidity baking?
1 Like
How are there no conflicts of interest if the TF literally owns part of the CO involved with tzBTC? That is the very definition of a conflict of interest.
1 Like
If TF participated in LB, they’d have to reduce their baking operation and move part of their btc to tzbtc. Isn’t that what everybody wants?
1 Like
Because TF has no material interest in tzBTC being used or not used? This would be on the order of maybe $10 for an organisation that owns on the order of $1B or $2B in assets.
No
2 Likes
That’s fair I don’t see a huge reason for TF to benefit but does the general public care about tzBTC?
I still think a stablecoin would be better suited for liquidity baking as it’s a de facto FIAT on-ramp.
tzBTC would be good too I just don’t see why stablecoins aren’t included.
I think the point has been made on both our sides. So you hear it from me:
**Oops, not enough enough people participated in the Tzip process, let’s inject a competing proposal and asset to poll bakers who may have missed this. **
Every proposal is opinionated, there’s no precedent here.
Sure. As stated above, I think achieving consensus on whether this is a good idea is useful, as opposed to springing to immediate action. I think yolo-injecting another proposal before reaching consensus is probably a net negative move that causes thrash and confusion.
I don’t think having monolithic tightly coupled proposals is a good idea - but that is a debate we as a community can have another day.
If you don’t like the proposal, make another one, you have more than enough technical know-how to do so.
I’ve asked some questions above about how to inject the proposal. My original post stated that I was happy to help put in the work to get this done.
You chose instead to present this as an ominous, power-consolidating, precedent-setting move by “the powers that be”.
I think my original post states this quite well and clearly lays out the concerns I have as well as a path to remediation. I think my posts here stand on their own and readers can reach their own conclusions - if your personal opinion is that I’m misrepresenting the situation, that is your right.
I do think the process around this proposal consolidates power away from bakers and sets a bad precedent. I’ve stated why extensively above so I won’t repeat here and I don’t think these are wrong opinions to have.
By creating this confrontational framing, you’ve engineered a no-win situation where the development teams involved in this either don’t inject new proposals and are thus insensitive to “the demands of the community” (even though comments on the choice of assets were requested for the past 5 months), or they do, in which case they give the appearance that they were up to something nefarious until you bravely called them up on it.
I don’t think that I’ve implied anyone is doing anything nefarious. I do think the easy win here is for additional protocols to get injected but I don’t think doing so admits any wrong doing or nefariousness on anyone’s part. Everyone here is human, humans sometimes make mistakes and sometimes people are working with different mental models / information.
8 Likes
One community member has produced a proposal that implements Granada, without liquidity baking:
I have read this code and I believe it to be correct and achieve the desired outcomes. I believe, to the best of my knowledge, that this is a legitimate proposal. I do not, however, know this person and I encourage the community to validate the code on their own, rather than blindly trusting my opinion.
It is now up to a baker if they would like to inject this protocol. It is my opinion that we should do this - but I’d like an implicit “second” by having another baker participate in injection.
I do still believe we should offer LB for an alternative asset. I’d be happy to help an interested party create this proposal (Otherwise, I may try to produce an asset). I’ve posted instructions for this above.
I am advocating options for this proposal, and decoupling of controversial features from common sense improvements. I am not advocating for a specific outcome by suggesting we inject these proposals - I’m only advocating that we give folks the choice.
If the two protocols described above are injected I think we’ve achieved the goal of decoupling and providing options and I feel that we are in a good place where the community of bakers can have a good faith discussion, debate and ultimately select the path forward.
7 Likes
It’s great to see the few opposing bakers finally understand LB and no longer have a knee jerk reaction. This feature is so powerful that I think will have a major positive impact on Tezos.
3 Likes
The point isn’t to bring liquidity to tzBTC, it’s tied to bitcoin so it already has deep liquidity. Its spread might be meh, but if you need volume you start tapping into the liquidity of the entire bitcoin market. Of course the same would be true of USDC for instance.
The point is to bring liquidity to tez, tzBTC is a tool to do that, and currently, there aren’t that many options. What do you think would work better and why?
5 Likes
Hi everyone.
I found the current topic quite interesting, and I believe many of the participants might lack some more core-dev-y point of view about what is going on. As such, I have written a little (~2000 words) about it. 
If you are interested in learning more about my point of view, or just want to improve the governance process of Tezos, you can come to this thread.
Cheers
13 Likes
