These are all very logical and sound points while all the others sound like emotional outbursts.
It’s abundantly clear what Liquidity Baking. It’s worth the experiment, I’m not sure why we are making solutions for problems that aren’t there.
1 Like
You say “assume malice,” I say “point out a conflict of interest.” Conflicts of interest don’t always result in bad outcomes, but sometimes they do and should generally be avoided by a charitable foundation whose mission is to promote the Tezos ecosystem. You’ve admitted there is a conflict, but attempted to minimize it as about the same as the price of a beer. Typically, venture capital investments in series A are quite a bit more than the price of a beer. I’m sure there is more to the story that we are unaware of. Perhaps tzBTC saw very little adoption and it wasn’t worth the cost to maintain the custody solution without more minting demand, but this is just speculation on my part because there is little transparency. I do know that there is a total 357.94 tzBTC minted by a single gatekeeper, which is rather tiny, and not likely to generate enough income to pay for the operational cost to custody it for long, without further issuance and minting fees.
3 Likes
If bakers don’t charge a baking fee for the extra minted 2.5 TEZ per block (because is instead burned), assuming 10% baker fee, they’ll be losing 0.25 TEZ per 30-second block, bakers will be losing around 262,800 TEZ annually. That’s two balances of Wake n Bake annually loss. This is an undeniable fact, incentives to run baker nodes will be reduced.
This can be avoided if the trading fee was passed on to bakers instead of burned, and LP’s would still get funded by the subsidy. There is no excuse, we can build the roads without sacrificing bakers with a wealth redistributive TAX.
@murbard and @lyoungblood Are you guys done discussing your “alleged” disagreement? We do notice this is just a simulation, so this hidden tax with the purpose to redistribute wealth is not exposed. You are just trying to divert the attention to tzbtc. You are not fooling anyone.
3 Likes
Alternatively, if the TF decided to FUND VOLUNTARILY the subsidy to bootstrap liquidity, they would just need to send to the smart contract 216000 monthly XTZ.
30 days * 24hrs * 60 minutes * 2 = 86400 30-second blocks x 2.5 TEZ subsidy per block = 216000 monthly XTZ.
And they’ll be getting back that 216000 XTZ every month due to the trading fee, or at least 90% of it. or 99%. So they won’t even lose much, or they can even make a profit if the trading volumes for that pair are high.
216000 XTZ every month is NOTHING for them, is very low risk, they’ll be risking in case of smart contract exploit, around only 0.24% of their total balance of all their foundation bakers combined. IS NOTHING FOR THEM.
2 Likes
When you call keefertaylor a liar over that, you presume to know what’s going on in his mind. And you don’t, simple as that. I personally do not believe he was lying when repeatedly saying (even after being corrected) that Bitcoin Suisse as a single entity mints TzBTC. And I assume so simply because this point does not matter, so he has no reason to lie about it. And he seemed to be arguing in good faith otherwise.
This thread for me, with the sole exception of your various ad hominem attacks, is a beautiful thing. This is what decentralised governance looks like. I haven’t seen anything like it on Ethereum, say. I think this sort of discussion should be encouraged to the maximum extent possible.
It is very complex to get governance systems right as there is a lot of game theory involved. In this case, it should be abundantly clear that you will not be able to discern what bakers think about liquidity baking by mixing it in with other amendments that are strict upgrades.
It should be paramount, always, that bakers understand what they are voting on and have the ability to express their preference clearly, simply and in a competitive manner (e.g. not by having to submit a competing proposal on their own - there is a lot of authority and credibility to a proposal presented by Nomadiclabs, and it is hard to compete with that).
It is incumbent on the developers and you not to present proposals in a way that maximises the possibility of your favourite features getting adopted. Rather, the developers and you should explain clearly why you think those features are the best, and leave the decision to bakers with full integrity.
4 Likes
This is good, beautiful examples of why Arthur and Lyoungblood are silent about this, yes, I’m beginning to think they are just simulating this discrepancy about tzbtc while they completely ignore the valid concerns you are raising about the baking reward tax you are mentioning. I completely support you. If LB is such a good idea, and only 216K TEZ is needed monthly to fund it, TF should just do it themselves. Shame that this issue is being ignored. If LB is passed with this hidden TAX, it will be in detriment of bakers revenue and the whole blockchain, as bakers are the people who secure it. Bakers might even sell their coins.
2 Likes
There are a lot of fallacies in this post.
Tezos is a permission-less network, any developer can collaborate, propose features, and inject a proposal.
You’re essentially asking core developers to be permissioned. LB was publicly known before Florence, there was even speculation that it would have been included in Florence.
I hope in the future more developers on board and propose features that they think are cool and can benefit Tezos. You are also speaking on behalf of Bakers when you aren’t even a baker yourself, what matters more is the voting count and that actually signals what Bakers want.
This type of wild, idiotic conspiracies are ridiculous and have no merit in an actual debate.
It is great that any developer can propose features, and I certainly encourage anyone to do so. My point is that when you do propose a feature, you should do so in a way that allows bakers to express a clear preference. I agree with what you said: what matters is that the voting count actually signals what bakers want. And that’s precisely the problem here: the voting can’t signal what bakers want on liquidity baking, because it has not been presented on its sole merits.
I don’t speak on behalf of anyone, I’m sharing my thoughts and opinions on this complicated issue.
He conveniently misrepresented the nature of tzBTC and BitcoinSuisse, I pointed out that was wrong, didn’t call him a liar at that point. He acknowledged the correction, took note of it, and then went right on to repeat the same falsehood on another thread. Either he has the memory of a goldfish, or he’s a liar.
2 Likes
He didn’t point it out, he feigned ignorance for rhethorical effect.
TF did not create this proposal and will not vote on it. Even if TF had a large financial stake in this (which it does not) there wouldn’t be a conflict.
No, I have not. I have said (not “admitted”, which implies I was being deceitful) that TF had a small stake in BitcoinSuisse and for a variety of reasons, explained that this did not represent a conflict. You can disagree with that assessment, but your sentence is phrased in a way that implies I agree with you.
This is a classic journalistic technique “you admitted there is a conflict” is an indirect way of saying: “you were deceitful but conceded that truth of our claim”.
When I call Keefer a liar, I have the courtesy to be direct about it.
The financial gain that might come to TF would be on that order yes.
That’s when fractions come into play.
Right, so you’re not assuming malice, you are just speculating that there is because you just don’t know. That’s an assumption.
A long running series of insinuations are actually far worse than direct accusations because you can’t refute them all explicitly.
The potential income, and to a lesser extent the cost, is a drop in the bucket for the parties involved. You either have no sense of orders of magnitude, or you’re making up insinuations you don’t yourself believe.
No matter how you cut it, you and Keefer are insinuating that the authors of the TZIP, myself included, are or could be somehow conspiring with TF to help BitcoinSuisse (for some reason it’s never Taurus that gets brought up). We are also doing it by opening up the TZIP process for discussions for months, and over an insignificant sum of money. So you’re not just insinuating we’re corrupt, you’re insinuating we’re corrupt morons.
As a reminder, you and Keefer showed nearly zero interest in the topic for almost half a year, despite extensive coverage, until right after this proposal was injected.
5 Likes
Ok so as I can see this is just a conversation between 3 people and everyone and everything else said mentioned or brought up or proposed is just drowned out with the dick swinging . I will excuse my self from this conversation since it’s apparently pointless. Toodaloo
1 Like
I’ve stated much of this elsewhere, but might as well throw my hat into this thread as well.
-
I am for Granada in its full form, including liquidity baking with tzbtc. I believe it to be a worthwhile experiment, even though I’d prefer a more easily accessible pair to onboard from (usdc, usdt, etc). We can change the pair later, and there is a kill switch if needed.
-
I respect all parties involved in this argument. Arthur, Keefer, and Luke are all great assets to our ecosystem.
-
I am certain there is no conspiracy here on the side of core devs, TF, or anyone else on the selection of tzbtc as the pair. As has been pointed out, this was the suggestion when LB was first introduced many months ago, and all of us as a community should try to do better to suggest alternatives before injection. If core devs do not see any opposition after proposing a future upgrade, it becomes more difficult to cater to varying opinions or prepare for them. Bakers had ample time to suggest other pairs while the tzip was written, and the parties involved in both core and tzbtc barely stand to gain much at all in the grand scope of things. But I understand everyone is busy, and may not dig into the details or feel motivated to respond until voting starts.
-
I also doubt there was any initial malice from Keefer and Luke, and I hope it remains that way going forward after this back and forth. All parties involved have strong varying opinions on how to go about things, and debating this via text on the internet makes one more likely to sound offensive when outlining their train of thought. The way some of those inquiries were written did indeed read like insinuations or attempts to focus on speculative ‘fuddy’ scenarios, so I can understand Arthur taking them as such. But also possibly misunderstandings, a desire to clarify concerns, or simply an attempt to use hypothetical scenarios to highlight a potential conflict of interest. But the intent really doesn’t matter at this point.
-
I recognize the argument that it could be better not to include a ‘controversial’ upgrade with common sense upgrades (U.S. Congress does this often lol), or just to present an option without it like we have in the past. However, it wasn’t controversial for the months leading up to injection, until now.
-
Even better if we can later figure out a way to add liquidity to both sides of the pair, rather than only xtz. We will be relying on arbitrage to maintain the balance, onboarding from a token that is not so easily acquired. But there weren’t better choices at the time.
-
I think both sides should just drop the topic for a bit at this point, as it has certainly devolved into a debate about the intent of both sides rather than the upgrade itself. I don’t want to see anyone coming away from this with a grudge against the other side, and in the end we are all here for Tezos.
-
Regardless of which side is “right”, from what I’m seeing, LB with tzbtc has clear support from the majority of people who have heard both sides of this debate. So we should focus on how to improve it going forward, and if it doesn’t pass or if the version without LB somehow moves forward, then we can go from there.
13 Likes
Well said, I wholeheartedly agree. It is telling that Arthur has not addressed Keefer’s primary concern: why was Granada not injected with two options, one with the more controversial liquidity baking, and one without? Nomadic Labs could choose to inject a second version without liquidity baking, but they did not, and that carries a lot of weight. That’s why this proposal feels more coerced that past proposals.
1 Like
I’m not silent. I like this idea. I’ve just woke up in US Pacific time and am catching up on this thread. It does seem more appropriate to fund liquidity incentives from the TF treasury than it does from network inflation. Most DeFi protocols on Ethereum would follow this model and fund liquidity incentives from their DAO treasury, rather than asking users of their protocol to fund it through protocol inflation or fees.
1 Like
Have you considered Occam’s razor? Perhaps he posted in the other thread before he was corrected. He acknowledged his mistake, which is fairly easy for anyone who hasn’t read the tzBTC whitepaper to make. He acknowledged his mistake and corrected it, which is something liars typically don’t do. I didn’t even know there were multiple tzBTC gatekeepers (custodians) until I looked at the website, but the reality is that Bitcoin Suisse is the only custodian actually holding any underlying BTC. You can tell by this info at the bottom of the https://tzbtc.io/ page
2 Likes
This can not be the main point, because there is an escape hatch that can turn off liquidtiy baking.
It comes together in one proposal simply for practicality reasons.
The comparison is wrong, bakers are encouraged and can disagree through the escape hatch provided by the protocol injectors.
Bakers will decide in a fair process of the escape hatch if liquidity baking stays or not.
Well said, Cory. I agree with almost all of your points. What is done is done. The protocol was injected, without an alternative that excludes LB, and is likely to be promoted. LB was somewhat controversial when it was first discussed months ago, although I was and remain a supporter of it, just not the exact implementation details.
At this point I think we’ll just have to see how this experiment plays out.
3 Likes
Only after paying 6 months of free rent…
That’s wrong they can turn it off. Bakers have to continuously keep signaling support for LB for the subsidy to happen. Please read the TZIP.
3 Likes
