Announcing Granada

Thatā€™s fair I donā€™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 itā€™s a de facto FIAT on-ramp.

tzBTC would be good too I just donā€™t see why stablecoins arenā€™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, letā€™s inject a competing proposal and asset to poll bakers who may have missed this. **

Every proposal is opinionated, thereā€™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 donā€™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 donā€™t like the proposal, make another one, you have more than enough technical know-how to do so.

Iā€™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 ā€œthe powers that beā€.

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 Iā€™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. Iā€™ve stated why extensively above so I wonā€™t repeat here and I donā€™t think these are wrong opinions to have.

By creating this confrontational framing, youā€™ve engineered a no-win situation where the development teams involved in this either donā€™t inject new proposals and are thus insensitive to ā€œthe demands of the communityā€ (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 donā€™t think that Iā€™ve implied anyone is doing anything nefarious. I do think the easy win here is for additional protocols to get injected but I donā€™t think doing so admits any wrong doing or nefariousness on anyoneā€™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 Iā€™d like an implicit ā€œsecondā€ by having another baker participate in injection.

I do still believe we should offer LB for an alternative asset. Iā€™d be happy to help an interested party create this proposal (Otherwise, I may try to produce an asset). Iā€™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 - Iā€™m only advocating that we give folks the choice.

If the two protocols described above are injected I think weā€™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

Itā€™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 isnā€™t to bring liquidity to tzBTC, itā€™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 arenā€™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. :slight_smile:

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

Awesome points being raised by Keefer, particularly on not injecting tightly coupled proposals and allowing bakers more options to choose from when voting for proposals. However, I do not agree with changing the liquidity pair asset from tzBTC to an alternative pair at this last minute. This topic about liquidity baking with xtz/tzBTC has come up many times in different platforms that even only as a general user of Tezos, I have been aware about it for couple of months. If people had issues with tzBTC being used as the asset pair, this concern should have been raised and discussed a long time back when it was absolutely clear that tzBTC was the asset that was being worked on for liquidity baking.

I do not think it is on any xtz holdersā€™ advantage to try and change the liquidity asset now after the proposal has already been injected. Why not let this experiment run for few months and perhaps try and change it to a different asset after six months if there is community consensus? Granada proposal was likely tested by many core dev teams and had gone through several reviews before it was injected. So, the suggestions that a third party inject a new proposal without liquidity baking (or with an alternative asset) after only reading or being aware about liquidity baking in the last few days seems like a hasty and an irrational move. Further, I would also worry about the security implications to Tezos from proposals being injected by people who are only now reviewing the code and trying to tweak it to make it more in line with the suggestions presented by Keefer. I sincerely hope that we as a community completely ignore this idea about moving to a different asset for liquidity baking at the moment, and continue with the Granada proposal as it is.

3 Likes

Thank you galfour for your insight. One of the brightest minds in the Tezos ecosystem.

7 Likes

Sounds like the subsidy, is going to propitiate some sort of crony capitalism, even if the minting fee is miniscule, it matters. I donā€™t like that.

1 Like

It seems Liquidity Baking will need to be set up 3 times. Once for tzBTC/XTZ, once for a stable-USD/XTZ, and once more for a stable-USD/tzBTC. That 3-point pyramid would allow for full arbitrage opportunities. The more channels for arbitrage the more volume and so the more fees will get burnt to offset this new temporary inflation.

3 Likes

I guess tzBTC is the best option at the moment.

What would it take to get USDT or USDC interested in using Tezos for issuance? They may be interested in Liquidity Baking on their stablecoins.

2 Likes

Time and use cases, so yes, itā€™s a thing that might make them integrate sooner.

6 Likes

I donā€™t think itā€™s a good idea to subsidize multiple pools. But what we could do is use a constant mean instead of constant product in order to have more than two assets in one pool.

5 Likes

It is my understanding that the alternative protocol presented earlier today was injected in hash oo1SPmMcEzhLK8q2tvzfyuXtGkBkqmqWWMkyNgWNQCiVgAFTB7b.

Importantly, at this time I do not have opinions on whether bakers should / should not vote for this proposal, though I am happy that options and alternatives are being presented.

Iā€™ve written my understanding of the protocol and itā€™s implications here:

1 Like

As a small baker, I Iā€™m concerned on this matter. These proposal is reducing Bakers rewards by 6%. It is a subsidy at bakerā€™s expenses.
It makes sense to obtain back the whole 100% block rewards, the whole cake, to us bakers.

It may be difficult to subsidize a stable-USD/tzBTC pair so I like your idea better since triple MM are supposed to be more stable. However that type of smart contract does not yet exist on Tezos. Therefore it may take more time to develop your proposed smart contract, than it would to use the existing technology we have and point to another pool on the next protocol upgrade.

1 Like

This is false and has been addressed above. The subsidy is an additional component that doesnā€™t come from Bakers rewards.

it doesnā€™t reduce anything, you still get your 100% of the pie and additional 2.5 tez per block goes to LB

1 Like

In terms of the number of XTZ that you receive, your baking rewards would actually increase very slightly. This is because any XTZ moved to the new liquidity baking pool are no longer involved with the traditional baking process, so you have a larger share.

Of course the new subsidy for liquidity baking does cause a small amount of inflation, so all Tezos holders (not just bakers) equally bear that cost. Thatā€™s rather the point, that we can take collective action through the governance process to do something that benefits the Tezos ecosystem (in this case by improving liquidity). That concept of collective action to achieve a public good has always been a consideration in Tezos and was mentioned in the original position paper from 2014.

2 Likes

Well, it will be involved after Liquidity providers receive the payment. Some of them will choose to stake their TEZ. Some will dump them (and whoever who bought them will mostly stake them too).

If the XTZ of the trading fee was given to bakers instead of burned, we would all bear the cost too. Bakers would just distribute the rewards to delegators as usual. By burning them instead, it is like if we were being forced to distribute those rewards with a 0% baker fee to delegators. This will undoubtedly reduce incentives to run a baker node.

So to be fair, we will only have 94% of the block rewards, with full control of the baking fee, and 6% will now be free of baker fee (0% baker fee). Before this LB thing, we would get 100% of the whole pie of the monetary emission, and we could choose the baker fee of the whole cake.

Your collective action sucks for us. Bakers are being deluded by the makers of this LB proposal, and they are ignoring this, ā€œthe public goodā€ hides a baker sacrificial. Make a LB variant proposal, so the TEZ collected from the trading fee, is distributed back to bakers, so we regain control of the baking fee of the whole 100% of the monetary emission.