No, is not wrong Arthur. It’s a free rent, IF those 6% extra generated supply was not burned, and instead was processed by bakers before been distributed, bakers would not be losing 262,800 TEZ annually, you can’t argue with simple math. And ONCE Liquidity baking is implemented, it is not going to be voted for only 6 months, it will be voted for years. Accept it, you are a socialist.
Here is the math:
Minutes in a year= 525600 x 2 (30-second blocks) = 1051200
1051200 x 0.25 TEZ (block subsidy is 2.5, assuming 10% baker fee) = 262800 TEZ annual loss of rewards that could have gone to bakers, but instead they were BURNED.
No, a supermajority of bakers have to intentionally take an action and opt-out in order for the experiment to end earlier than the sunset. If it was opt-in, that would be entirely different, and would be a far less confrontational way to enable this feature.
That’s what is wrong, the supermajority of bakers voting for their own self-sacrifice, imposing on the individual baker a TAX with the purpose to redistribute wealth, because Arthur and Sophia are brainwashing all bakers with this hidden tax. IS so wrong. And the worst of it, is that LP’s could still be funded, if the trading fee was retributed back to bakers, that’s the truth.
Then Arthur says
“is like you operate over the asumtion that block rewards are baker’s rewards”.
Oh really, who has governmental power over the TEZ printing machine, Arthur? WE have it, not you, or your influence over bakers, WEEEE HAVE IT. Unless you become a BAKER, you don’t have a say of who controls the printing machine.
I think at this point most of the arguments for and against LB have been thoroughly discussed and rehashed. I respect everyone’s opinion and support LB. I no longer operate a personal baker (I still hold a lot of Tez, but it is being used as the bond in another baker), but if I did, I would actually vote for Granada, warts and all, to move the protocol forward. However, I have severe reservations about the way it was injected and the marketing behind it, and hope that future protocol injections can be done in a more modular way where we separate features and give optionality, like past proposals.
May your endorsements always be included and your baking rights be lucky. Cheers.
You can’t be that guy that knows what is wrong and speaks the truth, that bakers are giving away a free rent, but at the end says, oh but if I was a baker I would still vote for Granada. It means, you are in favor of self-sacrifice for nothing, because the roads could still be build, by bakers processing the trading fee. Because LPs are funded regardless.
I have no respect for the altruist culture of self-sacrifice, even less when there is no reason. If we needed to TAX ourselves to build the roads, and there was no way of recovering that money, okay, it may be worth it to tax ourselves, so we can have nice roads, but this is not the case, we can build the roads and recover the money, like a loan. The only reason they want to burn it, is for redistribution of wealth purposes. Make up your mind, you are in favor of socialism or in favor of bakers getting that money for their hard work instead of burned.
Every block contains a flag indicating support or no support. The default flag depends on the baking client bakers run, not on the protocol Defaults matter but one way or another your claim that it has to run for 6 months is false and it apparently doesn’t stem from ignorance.
All the sudden, he’s opposed now to bakers earning rewards? Now he prefers to burn them. Incredible. He’s like the green power ranger, sometimes he is with us, sometimes he is against bakers earning rewards. Very smart guy, but his ideals are changed from one day to the other.
I apologize for being absent from the conversation. I’m currently attending the Bitcoin conference in Miami and haven’t had time to properly reply. A lot has been discussed. I’m going to thread some discussions into a few comments so users can respond individually.
First, I am aware of the forked thread from Gabriel About the proposal process. I have not had time to fully read that thread, but i intend to read and engage in the future.
At a high level, I feel there’s a four phase governance process for exactly the type of debate we are having now. I do not feel that the proposal phrase is simply a “rubber stamp”. I believe the current cycle represents a time for good faith debate, where we should try to provide options for features which are controversial. I am saddened that this didn’t happen from the core devs side, but encouraged the community was able to make it happen. I’m also thankful to the engineers who stood up a testnet for the alternative proposal. Overall, I think all sides have learned something here.
Id like to underscore Luke’s point that it is possible to support a high level objective and not the implementation details.
I also feel that we can (and should!) be allowed to react to changes in both the ecosystem and crypto space. “This was decided 5 months ago and can’t be changed” doesn’t seem like a strong argument to me.
I’d also like to echo Luke’s sentiment that there were more user friendly ways to do this. Whether that is having bakers vote on the chosen asset or making the flag opt in. Both provide friendlier, less controversial ways to ship this feature. This sentiment should have been communicated in a TZIP process though, and as I’ve said before I think highly of the engineering work that occurred on LB.
Lastly, I’d just point out that I suspect many bakers have other things in their life besides Tezos. As opposed to a core dev who is working on things 40+ hours a week. I could certainly be more involved in the TZIP process, but it’s hard to be in every conversation and it’s unrealistic to expect every baker or person with an opinion to be in every discussion.
Two questions that I haven’t readily found answers to and I think are relevant to bakers considering their options:
Is there a UI for the CFMM contract. Is someone building or maintaining that contract
Is there a way in the CLI for bakers to change the flag value to turn this off? I realize there is protocol support but that doesn’t mean there’s software support.
I understand that to some readers my last post about conflicts of interest. may have come off as accusatory towards Arthur. I did not intend to accuse Arthur of corruption, but in retrospect I realize it may have come off that way. I also would like to publicly apologize to Arthur for that situation, and will work to choose words more carefully.
—
Moving on:
It is important that we understand how these decisions are made and what conflicts of interest are. I don’t think we’ve done a great job of this before, and I hope the community will help us raise those standards over time.
I do think that the points I have made stand. Conflicts of interest are not black and white; and there is the potential for a conflict here. The value gained from an individual action does not constitute a complete picture of the full situation. Likewise, an individual action examined in isolation does not absolve one of conflicts of interest.
To that end, I think it is absolutely relevant and reasonable to ask if the foundation has business relationships, past or present with the members of the consortium.
This is different than me suggesting that I want ten years of tax history which is a broad and invasive query. If there’s specific things that folks want to ask me that pertain to this discussion I’m certainly happy to answer.
Lastly, I suspect and hope these questions are easy to answer. I’m advocating for transparency and clarity, not on a witch hunt. My thoughts here reflect that I’ve wanted bakers to have more insight and more options.
I’d reiterate that I think the following is relevant to the conversation:
Any other existing business or service provider relationships with Bitcoin Suisse, Taurus or other member’s of the consortium
Times that money has changed hands between Bitcoin Suisse, Taurus or other members of the consortium
I read the TZIP. This is not clear at all. What is protocol_data? So it requires a custom baker client? Are both the “opt-in” and “opt-out” baker clients included in 9.2? These are questions any baker would probably ask. Will you also please stop attacking me in every reply?
I hope at some point you’ll reflect on the consequences of your particular communications style, but for now, I have a lot of other projects that I can engage with that provide more meaningful rewards for me, both financially, professionally, and personally.
Thanks for continuing to engage with the Tezos community and contribute to our development.
No. We’re leaving this to the community, but I would personally support anyone who develops UIs by answering any questions they have about the contract.
This doesn’t comport with the rest of your post where you continue to imply collusion between TF and the tzBTC consortium, which would be unethical on the part of Arthur and TF.
I don’t personally have answers to these questions because, despite being an author of the TZIP and having written all of the code for liquidity baking (with great assistance from many at Nomadic Labs who reviewed it), I probably have less knowledge than you of literally anything that goes on at TF and I do not financially benefit from any of their investments other than through my continued employment at an organization they fund. Suffice to say, it is extremely far fetched to imagine I colluded with the tzBTC consortium.
I don’t believe you think Arthur did either, which is why it’s disappointing you continue to concern troll about it and claim you’re innocently arguing for transparency. Of course, I can’t argue against TF releasing this information because it would appear as if there’s something to hide. But you have no evidence that any relationship between TF and the tzBTC consortium is relevant to the choice of tzBTC for liquidity baking.
I think the real concern here is the relative prestige of assets that are beginning to compete in the nascent Tezos DeFi landscape. Many, not just you, seem concerned that tzBTC would enjoy elevated prestige from its inclusion in a protocol feature and that this would disadvantage other assets. I can sympathize with this, but as we’ve explained from the very beginning it was at the time our only viable option and we still believe it best fulfills the desired properties for this feature. If you disagree, I suggest you’d get the most constructive response by proposing an alternative and arguing why it’s a better choice.
I will also note that there’s one group I’m fairly certain does not care about this elevated prestige: anyone associated with tzBTC. As Arthur already explained, the institutions behind it are large enough the minting fees mean nothing to them. And the contract was developed quite some time ago as a contract job by a consultancy who does not stand to financially or reputationally benefit from it at this point. Finally, tzBTC already has elevated prestige compared to other assets from its significant first-mover advantage. The minimal benefit of choosing tzBTC for everyone behind it compared to had we chosen another asset actually makes it the most neutral choice. This is the same with forking the code for the CPMM from a DEX that will soon be defunct along with the company that developed it (although I would like to reiterate that Dexter v2 is not the version on mainnet, was completely rewritten, and not by camlCase).
I think the smart move from developers of other Tezos assets and DeFi platforms is to realize that the greatest factor in their success is the success of the underlying currency. Justin Kan tweeted, " Startups mostly don’t compete against each other, they compete against no one giving a shit." Sadly, right now far from enough people give a shit about Tezos. Liquidity baking aims to dramatically change that. Despite the numerous lines crossed by several parties on this thread, I hope we can come together for common benefit. A rising tide lifts all boats.
Hi, even though you replied to Keefer I’m gonna comment on that because I share part of Keefer’s opinion and concerns
I disagree with you here, these are two completely different things.
We’re (or at least I am) asking to outline and make transparent business relationships and potential benefits TF might have from LB to give bakers some insight and help them make a decision. You may think it’s completely unnecessary and even unrelated but not everyone thinks this way
It’s not done to accuse anyone personally or Arthur specifically who iirc wasn’t even on TF’s board when LB was supposed to be proposed in F.
And TF probably have relationships or partnered with every party on tezos one way or another, it doesn’t mean we can’t use tzbtc but these relationships are good to be outlined when it’s needed.
I’d like to point out again that most of the bakers don’t have time to closely follow every TF’s investments and partnerships (as well as they can’t be as qualified as core devs, but that’s a different story).
However I’m more concerned with tzbtc being a custodial asset that you can’t buy/sell without KYC than with TF/Wrap/Kolibri or any other team benefits
It’s hard to agree with you on this either.
Despite being a first-mover, tzbtc was more than 5 or even 10 % off peg for about half a year.
Now a month old wWBTC is twice as liquid on quipuswap and at the moment it’s traded 1:1 btc, can’t give you more info about its peg because I don’t follow it.
Edit. I just checked volume stats on BCD and both of them are basically dead
There is a link to the tzip, in the first post here. The tzip links to the merge request, which transparently states how to set that flag. It is not hidden or hard to find and it should be part of every bakers due diligence, to click through these links.
I can understand why he is replying in a harsh way, but it’s not his job to kindly defend a proposal he hasn’t even written or injected.
He already has to clean up misconceptions and bad math in relation to the economics of LB.
Now additionally he has to defend himself and the TF from conspiracy therories and claims of collusion between TF, protocol devs, himself, and tzBTC.
Then, once he explains/disproves one of the points someone immediately comes up with the next, even more minor, point. (tzBTC collusion → tight coupling LB with 30s block times → 6 months sunset and free rent → it’s hard to find the escape hatch)
The most disappointing and unexpected is that reputable members of the community, who should be qualified enough to answer many questions themselves, are repeatedly making false claims, trying to portay TF/devs/Arthur in a bad light and keep wasting his time without apparently fully informing themselves about LB first.
Excellent post. Thank you, I am very excited to see the results of Liquidity Baking. I do believe it will provide a common benefit for the ecosystem and dramatically push Tezos into relevancy.
These are are the type of changes and experiments that can only happen on Tezos because of its modular code base and on chain governance. We need to use these competitive advantages to push Tezos further and be competing at the top.
Beyond LB, I think the community as a whole appreciate the work and thought you put behind this and hope to see you continue to innovate the chain.
Just for some perspective to people who are reading these posts. Sophia, Gabriel, and Arthur are probably the smartest people in the ecosystem. I for one would love to see these three to continue to collaborate more and propose new protocol upgrades in the future. It benefits Tezos as a whole.
So now we’re expected to deep link into merge requests to learn how to operate a baker? This is a pretty poor defense for the lack of any reasonable documentation accompanying a critical new feature. The lack of a frontend is also concerning. The only people that will be able to supply liquidity are people that are experts in Michelson and can construct their own contract interactions.
Look, I get it, Tezos needs adoption, and I wholeheartedly agree with some of the points Sophia made above, but releasing half-baked (no pun intended) protocol features with no front-end and no documentation is not the way we get better adoption.
How about TF simply starts a lightweight DeFi grants program where any protocol that can prove they aren’t an obvious scam gets grants in Tez to bootstrap liquidity in their protocol? There are a dozen projects building that actually have front-ends and some type of documentation, and aren’t centrally associated with TF or any of their funded development organizations.
I don’t see funding DeFi grants and LB being mutually exclusive. They can do both.
Also lack of front end gives an opportunity for some of the talented devs in the ecosystem to build a new product on Tezos. That’s actually the amazing thing about Tezos, it keeps implementing features at the protocol level and invites developers to build cool applications on top of it.
