This could simply be a support rep not aware of their role in tzBTC’s minting, or maybe they’ve discontinued minting, in which case that begs the question of what happened to their key, etc etc.
Thanks for doing some legwork here to go down the path to mint some tzBTC though, given Bitcoin Suisse’s prior involvement with the Tezos ICO you’d think they’d still be part of the ecosystem, but who knows.
Wow, this sounds like a potential disaster, and puts into a new light the criticisms of Granada liquidity baking.
@sophia gave some answers, but none of this addressed the fact that OP cannot get ANY of the supposed minters to fulfill their role. I just looked over on reddit and saw that @murbard is apparently reaching out to Bitcoin Suisse, but this issue (i.e., that multiple minters are not responding, except in the negative) seems bigger than just Bitcoin Suiise.
Yes, I completely agree, the whole process should be as easily as creating an account/wallet in the minter’s website, send documentation for KYC/AML, once approved, a simple interface to exchange BTC to TZBTC and vice versa back and forward. I thought this process was already ready? I’m baffled to know that you actually have to send emails, like if we were in the beginnings of the internet.
Thank you for your messages and interest on the exciting tzBTC project.
Due to regulatory issues we were not able to provide liquidity on tzBTC. Those issues have now been solved. Therefore we are now reaching every person or company that contacted us so you can expect an answer in the next hours/days. Here are a few things to know:
Minimum trade/minting size is 1 BTC
Fees apply due to the minting process
Instruments available against tzBTC are BTC (of course), XTZ, USDC, USDT, USD, EUR, CHF, GBP, JPY, CAD, SGD, MXN, NZD, AUD, ETH, XRP, LTC, BCH, EOS, ADA, DOGE, XLM, LINK, UNI, BNB and DOT
We provide liquidity for trades 24/7 via API, UI or chats on the previous instruments.
Trading/minting with Woorton is subject to onboarding including an online KYC AML process.
Every request that we receive on tzBTC will now be processed in the next 48h
Remember when people were saying that tzBTC had “elevated prestige” as an argument for jamming this proposal in with important protocol updates. Just lol
The feature itself is powerful and majority are excited for it to be implemented. Now the actual fun begins by proposing USDC in the future to replace tzBTC. With so much liquidity opened up for Tezos now, I can see a lot of positive economic activity happening.
Yeah, I cc’d to tradedesk@bitcoinsusse.com as well, according to their latest response, they are still in “evaluation stage” for tzBTC service, and recommend to use other gatekeepers. So I gave up on them, according to their performance, I won’t be too surprised if they will still be evaluating after 6 month Lquidity Baking.
Fortunately, Woorton did get in touch with me, I’m currently onboarding with them with KYC/AML process, hopefully it can eventually play out with some positive results.
That’s said, our community should learn some lessons here, when some protocol level upgrade need to interact with some third party entities, we SHOULD NOT only focus on exploring/evaluating the technical part, better yet, avoid involving with any third party as much as possible. If it’s absolutely necessary, TF should definately plays it’s role more here. For the situation Liquidity Baking with tzBTC now, I just think TF is too passive/layback to do its job well as it should.
We should consider integrating anything that would rely on a third party into the tezos blockchain itself if people still want LB. That way whatever was a third party becomes first party. (i.e. allow the tezos blockchain to mint/manage/burn tzBTC in a decentralized way)
The more integrations done at layer 1 of the chain, the more advanced the layer 2 can be.
If integrating tzBTC minting is a problem due to lack of KYC, then integrating a decentralized ID platform like TezID could resolve that. That way, anyone who wants to buy tzBTC would be required to identify themselves at the lowest level of the blockchain.
Not surprised to see tzBTC version of LB is still at APY > 100% after nearly two months.
@murbard If you really want to see LB APY to 10-20%, the way of our slack tzBTC gatekeepers/keyholders need to be changed immediately, otherwise we are wasting 7500 XTZ per day to see LB fail in totally unnecessary way.
According to the discussion here Announcing Granada - #25 by murbard , I’m expected fee around 0.22%, but the reality is the fee is at least 0.65-0.75%, so that probably explains why atomex charges 1.x% conversion fee.
This is a lesson for every baker when consider future proposals which includes any third parties.
LB was never meant for us. It was meant for TF insiders “friends and family” as you say. It is a joke. The sooner we realize the agendas and motives of the people pushing these protocol changes on us the sooner we will realize how counter productive and detrimental they are to the majority of investors/holders who hold Tezos. We are being bamboozled.
How and where can we facilitate a decent discussion to get more people on board and reach some kind of consensus on which other asset pair, if any, would be preferred over XTZ/tzBTC? I’m not sure this thread, or even this forum, is the right place to have this discussion. I have to admit that I often forget that Tezos Agora exists, so I miss out on a lot of the discussions that take place here. I generally stick to Reddit, the Tezos Announcements Telegram channel, and the Baking Slack to stay up to date on Tezos-related news/events. Perhaps people who are more active in various parts of the community can recommend a better place to have this discussion.
That said, if the community at large can reach a decision on a preferred alternate asset pair, perhaps we could convince someone to change it in an upcoming protocol upgrade proposal. Sophia says “it’s pretty easy” to do, but that may be from the point of view of someone who is already familiar with the Tezos codebase.
I’m not familiar with the codebase, but I think if I studied it long enough, I could follow Sophia’s instructions to propose a different LB asset pair. Perhaps the community could decide and we could collectively get something ready to submit in time for protocol I.
Adding a LB pair the action itself “it’s pretty easy”, nobody had ever doubted it. We thought tzBTC part is much more pretty easy too. It was never about adding a token to LB is rocket science, it’s always about which token to choose and why to choose it, Sophia is a genius developer and a much valuable asset to Tezos, but this whole thing stopped LB to be great is nothing related to code at all.
If no proper retrospective was given about what went wrong with tzBTC, we will definitely go into the same situation again and again. In this case, there should be no Liquidity Baking allowed to be proposed until all these issues addressed and can be prevented in the future.
The equilibrium with baking rewards is a theoretical (and risk-free) target for the pool size based on economic incentives, not a requirement. 10% of that would still be far greater liquidity than has existed for tez so far.
I do agree there’s a bit of a bootstrapping question with the initial liquidity, but as you note the APY will initially be very high. This is the whole point: it incentivizes LPs to grow the pool. It need only attract any liquidity at all and then any users will be be able to swap tzBTC out of the CPMM.
I’m not sure if this will be a popular point to note, but it bears mentioning that liquidity providers and bakers are not necessarily the same set of users. They involve very different risks, knowledge areas, and operational involvement. Not everyone is in a position to be a liquidity provider and that’s okay. Everyone who owns tez will benefit from increased liquidity with a widely held asset like bitcoin.
