Stabilized Bitcoin using eMunie economics

[franky1]

Franky, the reality is that if the US goverment says that a duck is a crocodile, and sticks to it for a sufficiently long time, the duck becomes a crocodile.

and while america plays with crocodiles.. all 300mill amrican people see less utility in having "crocodiles" in their life.. yet
1.3BILLION people in china order duck
1.2BILLION people in india order duck
1.1billion people of the continent of africa order duck
742 million europeans order ducks

and now america loses its freedom to trade "crocodile" and the rest of the world wonder why duck is so cheap in america. and a great chance to arbitrage it on the crocodile exchange.. which chinese and indians find it weird to use a crocodile exchange that only supplies cheap duck.. but ultimately they dont care they are only going to use the crocodile exchange for a 2 minute flip to grab cheap duck

[Sparky_eMunie]

The Chinese adapt a lot of American things. I think Peking Crocodile would be on every street corner within 10 years.

[Anima]

Right so that brings me to the crux of the issue that needs to be addressed.  You are right, these informed traders were not
I largely considered the activity of buying low on the internal exchange and selling high on an external one as irrational, as the barrier to entry cost to trade on the internal exchange is minimal, I (perhaps incorrectly) assumed that no one would buy at the higher external price.  (Are there even any valid reasons why they would?)

That was my reasoning as well.

[tesslerc]

fiat
A. 3-5 business days. for wire transfers, cheques and even paypal withdraws
D. comparing Visa worldwide is a failure of understanding visa.. dd you know that Visa has not 1 ledger.. but multiple ledgers. and the statistics of world transactions is based on the combined sum of all their ledgers.. on that note. i wish to combine bitcoins ledger to represent visa USA, litecoin to represent VISA europe, feathercoin to represent Visa UK.  and a dozen other altcoins to represent the other dozen Visa ledgers.. and then lets combine the total transactions per second of cryptocurrency as a whole

A. 3-5 buisiness days for the payment to come in, but you have a central authority that can promise you within seconds that the money WILL come through. This element of trust makes VISA effectively REAL TIME.
With bitcoin you can't truly use it to buy day-to-day items, buying over the internet sure, but a coffee at starbucks? or a burger?

D. VISA can have 50 ledgers or even 1 trillion. This isn't the same as saying bitcoin represents X and litecoin represents Y.
VISA as VISA is a single protocol that can process many TX's at once. The exact details on how they implemented their technology isn't relevant, what is relevant is the outcome.
If you are able to force EUROPE to use ONLY litecoin, and the USA to use only BITCOIN, and somehow this is able to withstand VISA scale TX's world wide - FINE. But the current status is - if I want to use Bitcoin or any other crypto that has any activity at all, I will need to wait - this is what eMunie comes to fix.

...
lastly bitcoin is a great currency..
instead of centralized inflation that causes people to not save their income, and to spend it so much they even get loans to spend more, causing the country to have debt issues..

bitcoin is deflationry.
infact the coins i said in 2012-15 i am now spending happily without a care in the world. because the deflationary nature has helped me to turn a one hours wage into a weeks worth of spending. all because i saved.
...

Tell that to the people who bought at $1K and are now holding worthless bits and bytes.
In order for a crypto to actually work as a currency, for people to truly use it, and not use it as a means of converting fiat back and forth, you need it to be stable.
I will never use bitcoin to pay for anything, for the simple reason that what if 5 minutes after I pay for my dinner (for example), the price rises by 50% due to some whale buying.
So now the meal I just payed for $60 has now actually cost me $90.

In eMunie, when more supply is made, it is spread between all "share holders". Meaning that holding will benefit you. When the system creates new currency due to increase demand, a certain percent goes to those who have done work (i.e validate tx's and other actions that help the system) and a certain percent goes to the share holders based on the amount of shares they hold.
You should expect over time, that even though a single coin is still worth the same - the total amount of coins you have will rise, making your 1 hours work multiply.

[monsterer]

Have you considered a totally different approach?

Lose the fungibility of the stable currency, instead have a leveraged trading market, where users go long/short against a feed price by putting their base currency up as collateral. A long must be matched with an opposite short in order for a trade to begin, and either side can close the trade at any time (by settling their collateral requirement which maybe +ve or -ve, paying the other side of the trade), which causes the other party to match against the next eligible order on the book.

This gives users a way to gain exposure to a stable currency, but you lose the ability to transfer it.

[Fuserleer]

Have you considered a totally different approach?

Lose the fungibility of the stable currency, instead have a leveraged trading market, where users go long/short against a feed price by putting their base currency up as collateral. A long must be matched with an opposite short in order for a trade to begin, and either side can close the trade at any time (by settling their collateral requirement which maybe +ve or -ve, paying the other side of the trade), which causes the other party to match against the next eligible order on the book.

This gives users a way to gain exposure to a stable currency, but you lose the ability to transfer it.

I considered this approach but it wasn't acceptable to the goal, I don't want to lose the fungibility and I don't want to have any reliance on any human element (going long/short).  With an elastic supply my goals can be achieved without these more complicated additional mechanisms.

This test was to trial the buffer mechanics, and how it responds as a reaction to trade pressures in a fixed supply environment such as Bitcoin, and as far as I'm concerned the test was a success as I'm using historical data and using the same buy/sell pressures.

However, the argument up for debate here has now focused on trader mentality, and whether my test is valid when considering them.  There are two main user sentiments that need to be accounted for when modifying the trades using historic data.

The first is, a user wants to buy X BTC, and in this case the volume doesn't need to be modified.  The second is, a user wants to buy $XXXX worth of BTC and in these cases the test data volume DOES need to be modified.

In a live environment, the users trades wont be modified so the argument presented disappears.

The main issue is that if I scale the volume, then the test needs to move away from emulating Bitcoin, as with scaled supply there will not be enough BTC available to fill these scaled trades.  To do this test the elastic supply needs to be enabled, it will stabilize and output a price curve exactly to the one posted, except the volumes will be much larger.

I'd like to do this volume scaling and run the sim with the elastic supply enabled, for my own peace of mind, and to appease people here...I'll post back the results if there is interest, but it wont be applicable to BTC anymore, so this topic now is probably not relevant in this forum.

[Videlicet]

Fuserleer,

I respect you're one of the few in this space actually working towards innovating, it's good to see more out there.

My opinion on the volatility issue isn't one of crypto but of free markets and human nature. Every little trade prompts different trades in reaction, a sort of causality chain based on user decisions. To try to control this is to try to restrict this causality chain, which just forces it into a different set of parameters.

Let alone the many different factors that go into free markets such as "volatility increases on full moons", among many other external factors that influence a free market.
Here's a good read on how lunar cycle affects markets: http://nowandfutures.com/large/E2008-1-1629870.texte20lunarcycle.pdf

Constraining human psychological tendencies in trading and setting value of an asset in hopes to attract more users to "stability" that allow them to say buy a cup of coffee without having a market fluctuation, is going against the basis of free markets.

Market cap and agreed value consensus generally have a greater effect on price stability in my opinion, as we've seen in bitcoin as its market has strengthened over the years.
It's a trade off, to attract people wanting "stability" is to push out the day traders that like to make money on the "volatility", when a currency will naturally mature over time with more users agreeing it is a decent container for their wealth.

I don't think it's right to take the free out of free markets.
To have a market's growth constrained to a few constants in my opinion is something that will work against you more than for you.

Thank You,
Viz.