[Emptied Post, the proposal was found to be gibberish]

[didIplaywell]

To avoid wasting anyone's time, I'm deleting the content for I can not delete the post. I found the entire proposal to be a mess of gibberish. But it ended up being a great starting point for an actual solution, which I will be publishing shortly in a new post

[dkbit98]

Please, feel pity for me and give the article a try

Funny thing that you said in first post how Terra-Luna shitcoin protocol worked and achieved stability... do you still think like the same after recent disaster?
It doesn't sound very good if you got inspiration from failed project like that, but if you want someone to test your idea than make some early alpha working product that is ready for testing.

[NotATether]

It is a really long whitepaper, so I could only skim through the most important sections, but I see one problem when using a new token, which must be overcome (and has already been pointed out by dkbit18).

Since it is controlled by a centralized entity (as making it decentralzied would make is susceptible to hacks as cryptographers can't possibly review all smart contracts), people are going to think that they can get rich off of it, which exacebrates pumps and dumps from hills and valleys to literal cliffs. I.e. any massed sell-off of the token will induce one big dump in the price that can't be offset by the central entity, similar to Luna's case.

[didIplaywell]

Funny thing that you said in first post how Terra-Luna shitcoin protocol worked and achieved stability... do you still think like the same after recent disaster?
It doesn't sound very good if you got inspiration from failed project like that, but if you want someone to test your idea than make some early alpha working product that is ready for testing.

Hello! Thank you for your answer. It's a valid point, for sure.

Yes, I do think it's still a good comparison, because there are fundamental differences between the Terra protocol and this one. The Terra protocol did prove that algorithmic stabilization is possible. It fails where it depends on it's speculation token Luna. There is no such token in this protocol, so it just can't fail the same way. There is actually no auxiliary token at all, there are only stablecoin and bitcoin, no other shitcoin nor anything alike.

Your second point is also valid, and I'm sorry if my post came interpreted that way, but I'm not looking for anyone to test this for me (for sure, my pleasure if anyone wants to own the entire thing). It's still a concept, it's complex, and it involved and involves a lot of work, so I just wanted to discuss with people and get it as polished as possible before getting into actual programming.

[didIplaywell]

It is a really long whitepaper, so I could only skim through the most important sections, but I see one problem when using a new token, which must be overcome (and has already been pointed out by dkbit18).

Since it is controlled by a centralized entity (as making it decentralzied would make is susceptible to hacks as cryptographers can't possibly review all smart contracts), people are going to think that they can get rich off of it, which exacebrates pumps and dumps from hills and valleys to literal cliffs. I.e. any massed sell-off of the token will induce one big dump in the price that can't be offset by the central entity, similar to Luna's case.

Hello!

I agree it's a long text, so I thank you a lot for your time

As I pointed above, there is no new token to profit from, only stablecoin and bitcoin. This protocol do not generates any new shitcoin. It's designed only to allow for a non chaotic migration, and then to be abandoned forever, leaving only pure bitcoin, and no residual shitcoin.

[hZti]

In my opinion there is only one way to test if this whole concept will work and that is to create some kind of testnet for users to see.

[didIplaywell]

In my opinion there is only one way to test if this whole concept will work and that is to create some kind of testnet for users to see.

Hello!

I totally agree with you! I just wanted to have more conversation about it prior to actual development. I conceived this protocol entirely by myself, which makes it more prone to basic errors even from the concept itself. I thought that I could discuss the concept in this forum either to get it polished/corrected or even to get it disproved by some inherent flaw some of you may find.

[saxydev]

If no one is considering to take on this task, I'm more than willing to do it myself, but I will need the support of the community, I can't afford this development by myself currently.

I can dev at a decent cost, but, makes no sense. It just doesn't. I have stopped reading when you said the price is equal with adoption. And LN is not the solution nor any other current alt. For such situation the collateral protocol would be gigantic, the affiliation between the CP and LP will just not work. The time spent on writing it should've been enough for you to realise that not even in a utopia of your choice, it will not work.

Good luck with that, I know I am being vague but I can't pull my head arround how someone would think of this.

[didIplaywell]

Hello!!

Don't worry on being vague, I understand it's too long, so I understand your perception. Since it's a perception, I can not argue against. But I'm just writing to thank you for your time, I'm aware and I really appreciate the effort it takes

[maxcarjuzaa]

What is wrong with moneyonchain? why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

[didIplaywell]

What is wrong with moneyonchain? why are you trying to reinvent the wheel?

Hi Maximiliano! Proud to have you as compatriot, and honoured to receive your comment

To the best of my efforts, I was never able to come across your work in my searches. Just went trough your white-paper and its awesome, it does sounds like I'm indeed trying to reinvent the wheel, minus the technical capabilities to do so.

I'm clearly in no position to argue with you about this subject, I don't have the technical knowledge nor the expertise to do so.
I humbly dare to still make some comments on where I think my protocol is different than yours, the reason I would still pursue its development. Of course, I would be thrilled If you would be open to admit some of this ideas.

This aspects are more importantly different in this protocol:
- It assumes that fiat will tend to deprecate over time, so it's able to deal with that situation.
- It provides a place for the fiat "to die" when that happens, in the pools.
- It assumes that the economy will tend to adopt bitcoin as a base currency over time.
- It then defines a token which is entirely transitive in nature, allowing for a progressive and stable transition from a fiat based economy to a bitcoin based economy (a limit for which it's explicitly stated that only bitcoin will be left, without residual intermediary tokens, and the system that implements the protocol can cease to exist).

I hope my comments will not come as insolent, for again I'm in no position to argue about this against you. But I do humbly ask you to consider this, and I would love to hear how do you think that your protocol already haves this situations in consideration. If you do, I will then proceed to help to spread the word, with a stronger basis.

[maxcarjuzaa]

Lets talk,

DM me on twitter @maxcarjuzaa

[didIplaywell]

Hello!! I'm terribly sorry for the delay in my answer, I was swamped by the current national political turmoil plus work. I also wanted to extensively overhaul my work before coming back to you (which is done finally). I'm writing here just in case you see this first, but I'm writing to you right now from the @lisandroiaffar account in twitter!