I agree with the first part but can you expand on the 2nd part about the reasons? Bitcoin and Ethereum are shit shows yet are at the top. If anything, other projects above us are either too centralized, don’t have such an open governance system, or aren’t as far along as Tezos to get to points of debate like this.
3 Likes
Arthur you are unbelievably arrogant. It’s unbearable. How you are droning on over a consortium or a single entity benefiting, don’t you see it’s completely besides the point? Keefertaylor is arguing in good faith, you are not. It looks like you are trying to quell dissent and suffocate any discussion and it’s a horrible, horrible look for the project coming from you.
At the end of the day, keefertaylor has made a critical argument: features that are clearly uncontroversial (such as gas optimisations) have been combined with a feature that clearly is (and always has been) controversial. This is not acceptable: liquidity baking should have been voted on on its own merits. And I’m sure it would have passed. The way it is presented here I would have voted against on principle, even if I’m in favour of liquidity baking. But I’m just a poor delegator, and I see my baker has voted in favour.
4 Likes
This is entirely bullshit to correlate ranking or price to this debate.
I would be pissed too when you present Liquidity baking 5 months ago, requested feedback, and had absolutely zero controversy and all of a sudden someone starts to rage after its injected.
This feature isn’t controversial, it’s literally 3 people that are constantly arguing against it. Does 3 people make up the the entire ecosystem?
3 Likes
Yeah, ignore the ones that are silent who will vote against it. From one side, Bakers incentives being diluted by the subsidy for the reason I already explained, and on the other side TzBTC will be used due to a conflict of interest and will be like a crony capitalism. Baker notices these things and will vote nay, they are just silent.
It’s not true. There was quite a discussion on the LB topic. I raised concerns about tzbtc being a custodial asset.
Keefer made some good points, some of them might been wrong, some of them should be addressed imo even if they are clear to Arthur
And if by rage you’re referring to the way Arthur speaks, please don’t, it’s just the way he communicates
1 Like
It’s totally a minor point, but deliberately misrepresenting it is a tell.
2 Likes
Imagine releasing world changing tech, sacrificing your life and reputation, to only having dumbasses still questioning your intentions behind Tezos.
Somedays I wish you just raised funds privately or had a small ICO so you don’t have continously cut through bullshit in your spare time when you could be focusing on building Tezos.
I give you mass credit for having to deal with all of it and still launching a live chain 3 years before all the other layer 1 chains that raised funds in 2017.
1 Like
Why can’t we make everyone happy. We offer a proposal as a decentralized community that isn’t spear headed by Arthur or the TF or the core devs and we have this LB subsidized by the baking rewards of the bakers the TF has. That way the independent bakers don’t feel threatened and no one has to worry about inflation or any of these current issues we are discussing. Let the TF make the initial step and show our small community how dedicated they really are if they are truly dedicated to Tezos.
5 Likes
Big props to you for being constructive and taking this kind of initiative!
3 Likes
That way there is no legal issues, no worries with conflict of interests , no stress about dilution of bakers and it will be seen as a step in the right direction with decentralization in mind.
This is precisely the main point. There is a lot of precedent for injecting controversial proposals separately from less controversial ones, going back to at least Babylon, and even in Florence, baking accounts were injected separately, due to the significance of the changes.
I also find it to be a bad faith argument to say “this was discussed 5 months ago” as if that discussion 5 months ago meant that there can be no disagreement in the present or future on the merits and parameters of the specific proposal. This is like saying “we want to pass a law making housing more affordable,” having some initial discussions months ago, but when the final proposal arrives with specifics, only agreement/approval is allowed, there can be no dissent about the specifics of implementation. If in the past, I said “yes, I too would like to make housing somewhat more affordable” but the actual proposal requires landlords to give free rent and is economically unsustainable, I’m not allowed to disagree with it?
2 Likes
There was one idea proposed that would allow bakers to store a pool contract address that would receive the 4 Tez block reward at the same time they baked a block. I rather like that proposal (apologies for not wanting to scroll back and find it):
- (pro) It allows bakers to opt-in, and requires no action on their part
- (pro) It doesn’t play favorites with any single asset/token or pool
- (con) It would lead to bakers creating their own FA1.2 tokens that have no other purpose besides receiving rewards, which could lead to less desirable liquidity
- (mitigation) We could simply ratify/vote on an approved list of FA1.2 tokens that could be part of the pool, similar to the way Balancer distributes BAL using an approved token list: Proposing the Token Whitelist for BAL Distribution - Liquidity Mining - Balancer
There I go solutioning again (sorry). Ultimately, approving distribution of governance tokens like Tez to arbitrary liquidity pools is a very hard problem to solve in a way that isn’t easily manipulated by well funded actors: FTX Exchange 'Games the Rules' on BAL Token Distribution – Report
This is a problem that will have to be solved if we want to reward liquidity with Tez, and I’m afraid liquidity baking does nothing to solve this very hard problem.
5 Likes
This is a garbage proposal.
You are grossly misinformed about the economics and its been explained multiple times to the point no one wants to respond to it anymore.
At least the other arguments by Kolibri team are somewhat rational but your angle is 100% wrong from a bakers perspective.
1 Like
Believe it or not Im actually a baker tho, so how does that statement make sense lol?
Wise words. And if the TF funded LP’s, the trading fee will just gather back the TEZ the TF funded for LP’s, so they’ll get back the entirely TEZ of their block rewards, or let’s burn it like they want to do it to us. That way the TF loses some of that 27% VETO power they have.
As a baker, I am not overly concerned with subsidising the LP. The amount is very small and the outcome is good.
My concerns are the risks that this proposal will cause us to loose income and push the price of XTZ down.
1/ The LPs increased returns will cause some of our customers to move XTZ to the LP. I understand that less staking overall means that on average the returns will go up to compensate bakers. However, this is an average, and averages are only a reality when you’r sitting on a balcony. At the coal face this will cause winners and losers. I also understand that the incentives taper off, however this is closing the gate after the horse has already bolted. For example, it will only take a couple of our largest customer to move and our whole model becomes uneconomical. This is a different risk to market driven changes such as quipuswap where we have the ability to participate in a LP and delegate it back to ourselves. Those bakers that loose from this will have no recourse and those that are uneconomical will shut down.
Bakers need to be compensated for the losses that some of us we will incur due to this proposal so that the security of our network is not adversely impacted.
The simplest way to do this is for the TF to stop baking.
2/ An even bigger issue is that the closed arbitrage opportunities caused by using tzBTC will distort the XTZ price and negatively affect our investment. The additional XTZ from arbitrage will end up in the hands of a select few and they are likely take profits in BTC by dumping this on an exchange and this will push the price of XTZ down. Certainly the use of a closed market does not provide any benefit to our ecosystem.
The mitigation for this issue is to use an open market where everyone in the community can exchange BTC for a wrapped BTC one to one, minus a small minting fee (not via a CEX), and the arbitrage opportunities are also open to everyone. If the profits from these activities are available to everyone in the community, it will attract people to the ecosystem, and profits will be more likely to stay within the Tezos ecosystem. This would be a positive force within the community and on the XTZ price.
The Tezex bridge model supports this today (disclosure, we are a minter)
2 Likes
TF to stop baking has been something Iv been a major supporter of for 2 years now. Long over due. Everything else sounds like a 
on top .
1 Like
It’s not. What is bad faith in the other hand is not peeping a word for 5 months when feedback is being sought and crying that this is a precedent setting and nefarious power grab rife with conflict of interest when the corresponding proposal is injected, which is what Keefer has been doing, and the behaviour you’ve been white-knighting.
By the way, this was Keefer’s opening salvo. You talk a big game about not assuming malice, but that is exactly what he did, right from the bat. He did not present this as an oversight, or suggested an improvement, he implied malice from the very beginning.
So when Keefer demonstrably lies and misrepresents tzBTC, I’m the one “assuming malice” for calling it like it is, but when he portrays several core development teams, the Tezos Foundation and a few other parties as essentially running a cabal, that’s totally normal behaviour and part of a healthy and respectful debate assuming the best intentions.
Cool story.
6 Likes
All he ever did was put into light a scenario where it could be seen or perceived as one (which was only one small part of the many points he brought up). I don’t recall or personally see Keefer or Luke speaking in absolutes. Rather then seeing this discussion as constructive criticism it’s like you are making this into a personal attack. There is no reason to take this personally. We are all on the same side, just might have a difference of opinions.
4 Likes
