MasterCoin: New Protocol Layer Starting From “The Exodus Address”

[bytemaster]

If the fund sells at the ask price of $1.2 then presumably it will not result in the price falling, but instead the MC Held / Value Owed ratio would be unchanged.

Well, the escrow fund hits the bid or ask as appropriate. If you do that enough times, the price moves.

Price would move for its own sake, not because of your actions.  Price is driven by supply/demand for Gold IOU backed by 100+X% margin and the only thing your fund would be doing is maintaining the margin or decreasing it to some minimal level, say 150%.  

You still have the initial condition to address.   Everyone initially agrees to buy GoldCoin and 'self insure' everyone else against temporary losses due to volatility with a baked in assumption that MC will go up relative to Gold.    Everyone also recognizes that this insurance only works as long as everyone continues to hold a balance and not withdraw their funds and who ever holds on the longest when the price goes down takes the largest loss.  

In theory, as long as the fund never debased the escrow ratio and MC was intrinsically deflationary and growing in market demand then anyone who could 'hold on until the price recovery' would get their money back.   However, they could have held MC itself and had a better investment because they wouldn't be magnifying their losses by propping up (insuring someone else) and they would have an opportunity to profit from the gains in MC.  

Effectively this system transfers losses from short-term volatility to those who are holding for long-term gains in MC value.  Those who are LONG MC would be better off holding MC than holding their value in GC which has almost 0 upside potential (only the premium from increased margin) and more than 100% of the long-term downside potential.  

You must follow the money and always identify who is profiting and who is taking the loss and make sure that the profit == loss and thus a value transfer occurs.   Then ask yourself if the parties signed up for that particular transfer and what compensation did they receive for the risk they took?

[1713914808]

1713914808

[1713914808]

1713914808

[1713914808]

1713914808

[dacoinminster]

If you sell for higher than market price there's no reason anyone would buy from you. By definition a "market price" implies that this is a well functioning market which requires there to be plenty of buyers and sellers (not just you). If others are selling the same asset as you but for 1% lower there's no reason anyone would ever buy from the escrow.

By the way where are you proposing this escrow even comes from? So far you've just proposed that money sent to the "exodus address" go directly to funding you, your wife, and your kids.

Ah. There's the spiral_mind I know and love!

The escrow fund buys the cheapest coins below target. If somebody has offered them for sale below the target price, the escrow fund can buy them at that price. If they didn't want to sell at that price, they shouldn't have offered them for sale. The escrow fund merely buys and sells what is out there.

The escrow fund is created the moment the first person buys a new pegged currency. 100% of their money goes into the escrow fund.

[dacoinminster]

If the fund sells at the ask price of $1.2 then presumably it will not result in the price falling, but instead the MC Held / Value Owed ratio would be unchanged.

Well, the escrow fund hits the bid or ask as appropriate. If you do that enough times, the price moves.

Price would move for its own sake, not because of your actions.  Price is driven by supply/demand for Gold IOU backed by 100+X% margin and the only thing your fund would be doing is maintaining the margin or decreasing it to some minimal level, say 150%.  

You still have the initial condition to address.   Everyone initially agrees to buy GoldCoin and 'self insure' everyone else against temporary losses due to volatility with a baked in assumption that MC will go up relative to Gold.    Everyone also recognizes that this insurance only works as long as everyone continues to hold a balance and not withdraw their funds and who ever holds on the longest when the price goes down takes the largest loss.  

In theory, as long as the fund never debased the escrow ratio and MC was intrinsically deflationary and growing in market demand then anyone who could 'hold on until the price recovery' would get their money back.   However, they could have held MC itself and had a better investment because they wouldn't be magnifying their losses by propping up (insuring someone else) and they would have an opportunity to profit from the gains in MC.  

Effectively this system transfers losses from short-term volatility to those who are holding for long-term gains in MC value.  Those who are LONG MC would be better off holding MC than holding their value in GC which has almost 0 upside potential (only the premium from increased margin) and more than 100% of the long-term downside potential.  

You must follow the money and always identify who is profiting and who is taking the loss and make sure that the profit == loss and thus a value transfer occurs.   Then ask yourself if the parties signed up for that particular transfer and what compensation did they receive for the risk they took?

Yes yes and yes! MasterCoins should be a better investment over the long haul, but some people want stability!

Wait, did we just agree? At least, I don't see anything in this post that I disagree with. Maybe I'm missing something . . . .

[bytemaster]

If you sell for higher than market price there's no reason anyone would buy from you. By definition a "market price" implies that this is a well functioning market which requires there to be plenty of buyers and sellers (not just you). If others are selling the same asset as you but for 1% lower there's no reason anyone would ever buy from the escrow.

By the way where are you proposing this escrow even comes from? So far you've just proposed that money sent to the "exodus address" go directly to funding you, your wife, and your kids.

Ah. There's the spiral_mind I know and love!

The escrow fund buys the cheapest coins below target. If somebody has offered them for sale below the target price, the escrow fund can buy them at that price. If they didn't want to sell at that price, they shouldn't have offered them for sale. The escrow fund merely buys and sells what is out there.

The escrow fund is created the moment the first person buys a new pegged currency. 100% of their money goes into the escrow fund.

The cheapest below target is going to be at or below  Fund / Owed...  which will thus represent the same risk profile as owning MC directly without any of the gains.

[spiral_mind]

If you sell for higher than market price there's no reason anyone would buy from you. By definition a "market price" implies that this is a well functioning market which requires there to be plenty of buyers and sellers (not just you). If others are selling the same asset as you but for 1% lower there's no reason anyone would ever buy from the escrow.

By the way where are you proposing this escrow even comes from? So far you've just proposed that money sent to the "exodus address" go directly to funding you, your wife, and your kids.

Ah. There's the spiral_mind I know and love!

The escrow fund buys the cheapest coins below target. If somebody has offered them for sale below the target price, the escrow fund can buy them at that price. If they didn't want to sell at that price, they shouldn't have offered them for sale. The escrow fund merely buys and sells what is out there.

The escrow fund is created the moment the first person buys a new pegged currency. 100% of their money goes into the escrow fund.

This is just assuming that the price of your assets will go up forever. There's never going to be enough currency in the escrow to achieve parity unless there's a large investment in the escrow from outside. Even if you did that, you'd slowly bleed money until parity was lost. When the escrow runs out of money and parity is lost, the whole thing collapses.

[dacoinminster]

If you sell for higher than market price there's no reason anyone would buy from you. By definition a "market price" implies that this is a well functioning market which requires there to be plenty of buyers and sellers (not just you). If others are selling the same asset as you but for 1% lower there's no reason anyone would ever buy from the escrow.

By the way where are you proposing this escrow even comes from? So far you've just proposed that money sent to the "exodus address" go directly to funding you, your wife, and your kids.

Ah. There's the spiral_mind I know and love!

The escrow fund buys the cheapest coins below target. If somebody has offered them for sale below the target price, the escrow fund can buy them at that price. If they didn't want to sell at that price, they shouldn't have offered them for sale. The escrow fund merely buys and sells what is out there.

The escrow fund is created the moment the first person buys a new pegged currency. 100% of their money goes into the escrow fund.

The cheapest below target is going to be at or below  Fund / Owed...  which will thus represent the same risk profile as owning MC directly without any of the gains.

The risk exposure to a total collapse of MasterCoin is the same for both. If MasterCoin only drops a small amount, the risk profile for a GoldCoin holder is still based on the price of gold, not MasterCoin.

[dacoinminster]

This is just assuming that the price of your assets will go up forever. There's never going to be enough currency in the escrow to achieve parity unless there's a large investment in the escrow from outside. Even if you did that, you'd slowly bleed money until parity was lost. When the escrow runs out of money and parity is lost, the whole thing collapses.

I haven't ever seen a good reason posted why the escrow fund should bleed money. It makes money, as previously demonstrated. There's no assumption that prices will continue to go up, only that MasterCoin prices won't collapse catastrophically. If they do, then all currencies based on MasterCoin must collapse as well.

[bytemaster]

You must follow the money and always identify who is profiting and who is taking the loss and make sure that the profit == loss and thus a value transfer occurs.   Then ask yourself if the parties signed up for that particular transfer and what compensation did they receive for the risk they took?

Yes yes and yes! MasterCoins should be a better investment over the long haul, but some people want stability!

Wait, did we just agree? At least, I don't see anything in this post that I disagree with. Maybe I'm missing something . . . .

You are missing something....

So now that we have identified the mechanics of your system... you need to certify the following:

a) the escrow fund never acts to debase the backing by taking any action that would adjust the  Gold / Fund ratio below say 150%
b) this means the price of GoldCoin will initially track the value of MC with any downside adjustment in price, but will not track it to the upside because those gains are being captured to fund your margin.
c) this means that no one in the right mind would buy a one-way ticket to fund the system initially.
d) this means that the long-term holders have their gain capped at the difference in value between a 100% backed IOU and a 150% backed IOU.  

Who does the system transfer value from to cover the volatility losses?  What did they receive in exchange for accepting that risk?  

From what I can tell, there is no reason to buy GoldCoin until after the margin is above 150% and every reason to sell it as soon as its value approaches 100% backing because there is no profit in holding it any more (only risk).

[dacoinminster]

You must follow the money and always identify who is profiting and who is taking the loss and make sure that the profit == loss and thus a value transfer occurs.   Then ask yourself if the parties signed up for that particular transfer and what compensation did they receive for the risk they took?

Yes yes and yes! MasterCoins should be a better investment over the long haul, but some people want stability!

Wait, did we just agree? At least, I don't see anything in this post that I disagree with. Maybe I'm missing something . . . .

You are missing something....

So now that we have identified the mechanics of your system... you need to certify the following:

a) the escrow fund never acts to debase the backing by taking any action that would adjust the  Gold / Fund ratio below say 150%
b) this means the price of GoldCoin will initially track the value of MC with any downside adjustment in price, but will not track it to the upside because those gains are being captured to fund your margin.
c) this means that no one in the right mind would buy a one-way ticket to fund the system initially.
d) this means that the long-term holders have their gain capped at the difference in value between a 100% backed IOU and a 150% backed IOU.  

Who does the system transfer value from to cover the volatility losses?  What did they receive in exchange for accepting that risk?  

From what I can tell, there is no reason to buy GoldCoin until after the margin is above 150% and every reason to sell it as soon as its value approaches 100% backing because there is no profit in holding it any more (only risk).

Certainly everyone will have their own idea of how healthy the escrow fund must be before they would trust it. Personally, I would start to get worried if the escrow fund of a new currency dropped below 50%. People with my level of risk aversion would use the protocol at launch, whereas people with your level of risk aversion would probably wait for one of the funds to become massively overfunded.

I think that's perfectly ok.

[bytemaster]

Or you could use the BitShares approach and the owners of BitUSD have almost 100% guarantee that BitUSD will always be worth more than face value USD.   Those that accept the risk of volatility profit immensely.

This isn't a question of risk for you, it is a matter of profit.

You have two choices:   Own  100 MC  worth 1 Oz Gold      *or*     Own  2 GC  backed by 100 MC  (50% backing) and priced accordingly.

Lets assume the value of MC goes up by 10x

Case 1:  You have enough MC to buy  10 oz of Gold.
Case 2:  Your GC may have enough premium to be worth 2.3 oz of Gold.

Lets assume the value of MC goes down by to 1/10th its previous value.

Case 1:  You have enough MC to buy 0.1 oz of Gold
Case 2:  You own 2 GC with 5% backing and can trade them for 0.1 oz of Gold.


So what profit motive to you have to buy GC at 50% backing over just owning MC?

[dacoinminster]

Or you could use the BitShares approach and the owners of BitUSD have almost 100% guarantee that BitUSD will always be worth more than face value USD.   Those that accept the risk of volatility profit immensely.

This isn't a question of risk for you, it is a matter of profit.

You have two choices:   Own  100 MC  worth 1 Oz Gold      *or*     Own  2 GC  backed by 100 MC  (50% backing) and priced accordingly.

Lets assume the value of MC goes up by 10x

Case 1:  You have enough MC to buy  10 oz of Gold.
Case 2:  Your GC may have enough premium to be worth 2.3 oz of Gold.

Lets assume the value of MC goes down by to 1/10th its previous value.

Case 1:  You have enough MC to buy 0.1 oz of Gold
Case 2:  You own 2 GC with 5% backing and can trade them for 0.1 oz of Gold.


So what profit motive to you have to buy GC at 50% backing over just owning MC?

It sounds like you are saying that the escrow fund isn't totally unworkable, but bitshares has a better model and will kick MasterCoin's butt.

I suppose there's only one way to find out . . .

[bytemaster]

Or you could use the BitShares approach and the owners of BitUSD have almost 100% guarantee that BitUSD will always be worth more than face value USD.   Those that accept the risk of volatility profit immensely.

This isn't a question of risk for you, it is a matter of profit.

You have two choices:   Own  100 MC  worth 1 Oz Gold      *or*     Own  2 GC  backed by 100 MC  (50% backing) and priced accordingly.

Lets assume the value of MC goes up by 10x

Case 1:  You have enough MC to buy  10 oz of Gold.
Case 2:  Your GC may have enough premium to be worth 2.3 oz of Gold.

Lets assume the value of MC goes down by to 1/10th its previous value.

Case 1:  You have enough MC to buy 0.1 oz of Gold
Case 2:  You own 2 GC with 5% backing and can trade them for 0.1 oz of Gold.


So what profit motive to you have to buy GC at 50% backing over just owning MC?

It sounds like you are saying that the escrow fund isn't totally unworkable, but bitshares has a better model and will kick MasterCoin's butt.

I suppose there's only one way to find out . . .

No, I am saying your system is unworkable because there is no profit motive to buy GC at anywhere near 100% back or below and thus it wouldn't happen except by those who are not smart enough to properly judge the risk/reward profile of their investment choices.

[spiral_mind]

It's impossible to reach parity with an asset simply by reinvesting the money from people who buy it. Do you dispute this?

If so where does the initial money come from? Why would anyone buy one considering there's nothing backing their purchase?

[bytemaster]

A more important question is this:

What value are you proposing MasterCoin has over BitShares?  

Lets compare by features:
  - better hashing algorithm ( eliminate miner centralization )
  - higher through put, lower overhead message block chain
  - dividends
  - options
  - short positions
  - better decentralization
  - trust free

If you all want to create the best product, I would highly suggest that you help to develop BitShares.  It is open source, has no pre-mining, and thus equal opportunity for everyone involved.    We could certainly use some additional development and support of people who at the very least see the value of creating GoldCoin/BitGold.  

So far you have yet to produce a single argument against BitShares other than Not Invented Here.

[dacoinminster]

A more important question is this:

What value are you proposing MasterCoin has over BitShares?  

Lets compare by features:
  - better hashing algorithm ( eliminate miner centralization )
  - higher through put, lower overhead message block chain
  - dividends
  - options
  - short positions
  - better decentralization
  - trust free

If you all want to create the best product, I would highly suggest that you help to develop BitShares.  It is open source, has no pre-mining, and thus equal opportunity for everyone involved.    We could certainly use some additional development and support of people who at the very least see the value of creating GoldCoin/BitGold.  

So far you have yet to produce a single argument against BitShares other than Not Invented Here.

MasterCoin bootstraps itself into existence, and you can buy some right now. If there's a way to invest in BitShares right now, I'm not aware of it. Also, the long/short model for stabilizing a currency has it's own weaknesses (although I definitely do NOT want to get drawn into another argument about these mechanisms if I can possibly avoid it - if you say it has no weaknesses, I won't argue with you about that).

I'm taking a very different path to try to kill the same giant. I'm glad that you are after the giant too, because if somebody kills him, we all benefit.

[TraderTimm]

I've been thinking about the fundraising part, and I can concede that being able to eat and keep a roof over your head is equitable. I'm just concerned about the nature of fundraising when it is paired with:

 

"Get 'em now folks, before they're worth SO MUCH MORE."*(multiple caveats in fine print)

Upon further consideration, that is the real 'meat' of my argument, in addition to the overall blockchain impact - which I'm not very pleased about, since I have no way (at this time) to say "no thank you, I will not verify your data". Bitcoin being what it is, it should be opt-in - the same way it is for what version of client you choose to run (unless we fork so hard we have to select one).

That's another problem, isn't it, it takes off and then we're talking not only about multiples of bandwidth/storage, but the ability of the main bitcoin devs being able to pick up the pace for future expansion and improvement. And since I've never bought the early-stressor argument either, please don't try it, it isn't very convincing.

Yup. If MasterCoin is successful, it will add a lot of transactions to bitcoin, making the total size of the block chain even more painful.

You are right - there is simply no way to prevent people from trying crazy stuff like this on top of bitcoin. For someone like me, that's kind of cool. Other people may not be so excited about it

Sometimes when I read crazy ideas like these, I have to wonder if we're either on the precipice of something horrible - like two halves of plutonium banging together and going critical, or something great, like the birth of the internet. The main issue here is the risk taken in doing so. If your baby 'breaks' bitcoin (For whatever duration - either temporarily or permanently), will the usual sentiment I see from software engineers the world over - usually along the lines of "Well, if 'X' couldn't handle it, then 'X' is stupid and deserved to die." - going to be enough to placate the angry mob of now-bereft bitcoiners?

Of course, the flip side is supposed to be "well, if we didn't do new things no progress would be made" -- but I've yet to see anyone say "Lets test this idea out responsibly just in case we totally fuck something up." It's all SHOVE it into the live production network and see what chaos it causes - "Oopsie!, we're just trying new and crazy ideas guys, so sorry for screwing over the rest of the community."

There has to be a better way than working on the jet engine while at 30,000 feet in the air - just saying.

[bytemaster]

A more important question is this:

What value are you proposing MasterCoin has over BitShares?  

Lets compare by features:
  - better hashing algorithm ( eliminate miner centralization )
  - higher through put, lower overhead message block chain
  - dividends
  - options
  - short positions
  - better decentralization
  - trust free

If you all want to create the best product, I would highly suggest that you help to develop BitShares.  It is open source, has no pre-mining, and thus equal opportunity for everyone involved.    We could certainly use some additional development and support of people who at the very least see the value of creating GoldCoin/BitGold.  

So far you have yet to produce a single argument against BitShares other than Not Invented Here.

MasterCoin bootstraps itself into existence, and you can buy some right now. If there's a way to invest in BitShares right now, I'm not aware of it. Also, the long/short model for stabilizing a currency has it's own weaknesses (although I definitely do NOT want to get drawn into another argument about these mechanisms if I can possibly avoid it - if you say it has no weaknesses, I won't argue with you about that).

I'm taking a very different path to try to kill the same giant. I'm glad that you are after the giant too, because if somebody kills him, we all benefit.

In effect, your system is different because it is pre-mined and you get paid to develop it.  Got it.    There exist some unspecified problems with the short/long model that I am willing to PAY YOU to identify and yet you opt to say nothing.    Obviously if there are problems then I want to know them so that they can be addressed.

[dacoinminster]

It's impossible to reach parity with an asset simply by reinvesting the money from people who buy it. Do you dispute this?

If so where does the initial money come from? Why would anyone buy one considering there's nothing backing their purchase?

Maybe I'm just tired, but this question makes no sense to me, and appears to be about a project fundamentally different than what I am working on. However, I'm sure if I understood what you are saying, I would dispute it.

[dacoinminster]

In effect, your system is different because it is pre-mined and you get paid to develop it.  Got it.    There exist some unspecified problems with the short/long model that I am willing to PAY YOU to identify and yet you opt to say nothing.    Obviously if there are problems then I want to know them so that they can be addressed.

It is worth far more than 1BTC to me to not get in another argument with you - it's exhausting to keep up with all your posts!

[bytemaster]

In effect, your system is different because it is pre-mined and you get paid to develop it.  Got it.    There exist some unspecified problems with the short/long model that I am willing to PAY YOU to identify and yet you opt to say nothing.    Obviously if there are problems then I want to know them so that they can be addressed.

It is worth far more than 1BTC to me to not get in another argument with you - it's exhausting to keep up with all your posts!

No kidding!  I am exhausted trying to protect everyone from the economic problems with MasterCoin... and you are an expert evader of the tough questions.

So what profit motive do you have to buy GC at 50% backing over just owning MC?