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, flabbergastedā¦
1 Like
Itās public information, that TF participated in the Series A of Bitcoin Suisse. Are you asking because you know or because you donāt 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.
Iāll 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, theyād have to reduce their baking operation and move part of their btc to tzbtc. Isnāt 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
Thatās fair I donāt 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 itās a de facto FIAT on-ramp.
tzBTC would be good too I just donāt see why stablecoins arenāt 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, letās inject a competing proposal and asset to poll bakers who may have missed this. **
Every proposal is opinionated, thereās 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 donāt 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 donāt like the proposal, make another one, you have more than enough technical know-how to do so.
Iāve 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 āthe 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 Iām 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. Iāve stated why extensively above so I wonāt repeat here and I donāt think these are wrong opinions to have.
By creating this confrontational framing, youāve engineered a no-win situation where the development teams involved in this either donāt inject new proposals and are thus insensitive to āthe 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 donāt think that Iāve implied anyone is doing anything nefarious. I do think the easy win here is for additional protocols to get injected but I donāt think doing so admits any wrong doing or nefariousness on anyoneās 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 Iād like an implicit āsecondā by having another baker participate in injection.
I do still believe we should offer LB for an alternative asset. Iād be happy to help an interested party create this proposal (Otherwise, I may try to produce an asset). Iāve 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 - Iām only advocating that we give folks the choice.
If the two protocols described above are injected I think weāve 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
Itās 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 isnāt to bring liquidity to tzBTC, itās 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 arenāt 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
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 donāt 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, itās a thing that might make them integrate sooner.
6 Likes
