But why do you want KYC/AML in the first place? One of the most attractive aspects of Blockchain and especially DEXes is the fact that you interact directly with your wallet without the need of bureaucracy…
1 Like
It’s not about want or not want, it’s about compliance. Same thing with Tezos activations. That is a primary distribution market that requires KYC/AML and still does.
The outside money of multiple billions of dollars that will come in to Tezos via/for Liquidity Baking are institutions which have no issue with this, and in fact their legal counsels generally insist on markets that respect KYC/AML practices.
Why are you dodging the question of the type of risk that every US resident has that holds usdtz, when your terms and condition specifically say it’s void?
Until you remove that risk, you’re asking the network to subsidize something that could lead to catastrophic loss of funds for US residents, which is a mighty leap of faith… It seems to me the more prudent move would be wait till you get USDtz to be compliant with US regulations and then re-approach this topic instead of jumping the gun.
2 Likes
It’s not true governance about kevin to contact bakers and beg for their votes and looks like a disgraceful acts. we hope that voting contest will be fair!!
“Why are you dodging the question of the type of risk that every US resident has that holds usdtz, when your terms and condition specifically say it’s void?”
I am not dodging anything. The legal docs are the truth of the matter, and what I say is and always has been consistent with that.
US persons are not to hold, mint, use, redeem USDtz. No no no. If you are in the US you must not. That is in documents. It’s what I say now, it’s what I’ll say again. If that changes there would be a big public announcement and you’d hear about it. But that day is certainly not today. Is that in any way unclear?
My point is that I do not believe that that disqualification is in any way an impediment to what would bring about the success of Liquidity Baking with this proposal. I’m sure you will argue that it will be. Then I will show you proxy indicators that would suggest otherwise.
Is this clear, Barry?
You mean go around to bakers one by one and talk to them as individuals and make my case so that they can hear information and evaluate the proposal? Then if they have feedback I answer it…and then continue with the effort to hopefully convince them and render confidence in it?
I would like to think everyone should do that and maybe if public policy makers were so localized in their approach to connect instead of treating constituents like cattle, then maybe world would be a better place. 
This image is true? I really don’t care if is tzbtc or usdtz, i just want this constant devaluing to stop, it was supposed that the burning fee would cover the printinng of XTZ.
If not, let’s turn off LB entirely. We are now a store of devalue.
1 Like
Looks like your grandiose statements on Twitter Space of saying core devs wanted this proposal was a stretch and a half and that’s putting it lightly.
This attempt to find contradictions are predicated on some fallacies about who or what core developers are and aren’t. All of this is public information and always has been.
Sure all of this information has been public, but the way you’re going about it is flat out deceitful. Trying to stump bakers privately claiming Arthur and core devs support this is a flat out lie as noted by Nomadic Labs. This is equivalent of saying Elon Musk is supporting your company because he liked one of your tweets. Your upselling and lies have been documented all over, and if this network ultimately decides to enact your proposal, well, all I will say is good luck to any US resident/US bakers supporting this and this network deserves all the unintended consequences that flow from such a haphazard proposal.
Here’s another example of your deceitful upselling:
Is this really the only way to stop subsidizing LB? Really Kevin? Deceitful
That is a lie, and you think if you keep repeating it people will believe it.
That is completely untrue but you seem to be taking things I say and spinning them on their head because you take the PRONOUNCED points I make that as an indicator that it must be wrong — that is, if the opposite were true it would hurt our case.
Therefore to ‘defeat’ what we’re doing here. All I’ve ever talked about has been the objectivity of all who you mentioned, making a very specific point about that and how important it is for the Tezos ecosystem IN those very Twitter spaces. But you would never post that because it contradicts the point you’re trying to ‘reveal’ and you know it.
You are trying to move the vote by posing yourself as an exposer, when you’re just being a spin-doctor. As soon as one point is contradicted you quickly scramble for something else without a second to breathe.
If this is some game to you I’m sorry but this is serious and a lot of work goes into it. I hope you can respect the fairness of the process.
How about I make the full transcript of your twitter space transcript and recording public and we will let the people decide? There’s a lot more than the one point i highlighted that is deceitful contained in there.
Exposer? I’m just highlighting your lies and deceit which has already been called out by NL.
Fairness in the system by privately trying to poll them to get them to support your proposal through lies and deceit? Yes, sounds very fair to me.
Yes this is true!
If this doesn’t pass, obviously we or someone would be back to try it again with another coin for the next period. EITHER proposal of Hangzhou will extend the subsidy until the letter ‘I’ upgrade.
-
The earlier Hangzhou version would keep tzBTC, which is clearly a total failure and I implore you to check the facts on that
-
The PsCUK Hangzhou version would end the subsidy for tzBTC, which is a clear and total failure, and grant it to USDtz for the same period of time.
EITHER WAY a subsidy of 2.5 XTZ per block will continue to the next upgrade.
However, some people hate the idea of Liquidity Baking altogether, or hate the subsidy aspect. What I say to them is that if you want subsidizing of Liquidity Baking to end, then at least with PsCUK, by the time we get to the next upgrade an argument can be made: “well we tried everything” otherwise we will argue that the subsidy failed because it’s the wrong token, which is the same argument we’re making right now.
You are not only misrepresenting me, but you are misrepresenting them as well. Then you are coming to a conclusion that you believe if you keep saying again and again it will resonate. You’re obsessed with ‘deceit’ because on some level you’re conscious of what you’re doing and it’s a projection.
Point to me in any article, tweet, or anything in the public realm that says core devs support your proposal like you’re claiming. NL’s tweets sums it up. You can try to “spin it” as you would say in any way shape or form, but it’s quite clear from their tweet.
This is a clear example of your strategy. I just talked about your spinning it and you start thinking “ahh… yeah ‘spin’ ‘spin’ hmm that’s bad huh. I’m going to say that’s what HE’s doing!”
Anyway:
- The code passes all tezos tests (https://gitlab.com/tessellatedgeometry/stabletech/-/pipelines/379950372)
- Sophia’s comment that things seem sound (USDtz for Liquidity Baking - #32 by sophia)
- Nicolas Ochem has a testnet that is working as expected: Slack
- The README contains extensive information about how to test on a mainnet context: README.md · master · TessellatedGeometry / stabletech · GitLab
Yup, it’s actually worse than that. I found a math error. Here is the better version.
Source for data: Arronax | powerful crypto/blockchain data analytics for Tezos, Ethereum and Bitcoin
i am of the same opinion as you. Shut down LB!
1 Like
Now USDtz need to wait for next upgrade window, and tzBTC version of Liquidity Baking can stay another few months at least. The message is clear though, can we as the community in the whole to improve the cumbersome tzBTC minters/gatekeepers situation together ? At least let’s give it a try, to see if we can learn something from competitors ?
If you want to shut down LB completely, you can configure your baker to signal your desire to shut it down.
Check the manual for the baker. tezos-baker-010-PtGRANAD man -v 3 and look at the --votefile argument you can pass.
-V --votefile <filename>: Read per block votes as JSON file. The content of the file should be either "{'liquidity_baking_escape_vote':'false'}" or "{'liquidity_baking_escape_vote':'true'}"
