You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I am being attacked on liquidity provider points...
I think you make good point. Somewhere I read it is going to increase to 1 hour in hard fork.
I think you make good point. Somewhere I read it is going to increase to 1 hour in hard fork.
increasing time makes it worse.as it is 30 minutes means 29 minutes of real liquidity has no value as I posted here: https://steemit.com/steem/@jl777/does-liquidity-reward-really-require-bid-to-be-there-for-30-minutes
It increased from 1 minute to 30 minutes. I see little evidence that it helps. Maybe too soon to say though.
I thing all trades should count for liquidity points/rewards!
at 30 minutes a larger capitalized market maker can simply clear out the smaller ones at 20 minutes, like abit is doing and make sure his sybil accounts are the only ones who have any points. A stalemate is fine by him as he stacked the top of the list with dozens of his accounts
time on the books should be a factor, not a threshold as I posted before. it is the binary all or nothing aspect about the time on books that allows this attack. if it was part of the equation then, well it might create a nonstop frenzy of orderclearing, all the time. But if to also add a distance from implied realtime price then it adds risk to the process.
What we have here is analogous to N@S. The selftrading marketmaker has nothing at stake and so can do infinite orderpairs without risk. Add risk to the equation, then even abit says it is too dangerous to keep doing what he is doing
Nonstop order clearing would cause the highest SP to always win since network bandwidth is allocated by SP.
I don't really know of a good solution. I think your idea of voting might be the best we're going to do, but it requires significant implementation effort and then the issue is whether voters will even be informed. Given the highly technical nature of the problem I suspect most voters would not be.
there is no perfect solution and human judgement is needed. that is why i suggested allocating half to vetted market makers, the other half can continue to be gifted to abit until an algo is finally created that works. distance to realtime implied price as a factor and duration of quote will go a long way to reduce the advantage by adding risk to the market maker
clearly the current situation is DOA (unless you are abit who advocates having just a single market maker - him)
why not let the various market makers vote on each other? that could be a factor along with half a dozen prominent stakeholders