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.
