You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: I am being attacked on liquidity provider points...
I disagree. Ultimately this ensures that liquidity is provided in an already thin market. In the future this may be worth considering, but not right now. There'd be no point receiving Steem and SBD if you can't liquidate them.
For context, I sold about $500 worth of SBD and the price collapsed from $1.03 to $0.91.
I think people should not criticize @abit before considering the value he is adding to Steem.
I am protesting that he is preventing me (and all other market makers) to make a single STEEM from the liquidity bonuses. When is a centralized monopoly become a good thing?
Decentralization does not mean equity.
Anyone with more money can pretty much out compete this market maker.
It's not an infrastructure backed monopoly (i.e. licensed to operate by state decree, or obtaining some sort of patent or expensive license).
when the biggest cap market maker gets a monopoly, it would be like the miner with the highest hashrate being able to generate all the blocks and prevent all the other miners from generating blocks.
Since abit was smart enough (he is very very smart!) to identify and capitalize on this, he is getting 1200 STEEM more per hour, every hour, every day and the capital requirement to compete against him keeps going up. At this point it would take over $1 mil USD to compete against abit
so while any billionaire could take away abit's effective monopoly, none will. Additionally your logic that it isnt a real monopoly since it isnt via license/patent ignores the things like MSFT monopoly. doesnt matter how a monopoly starts, once it is there they should operate by different rules.
but now we have abit accumulating 1 million STEEM per month. liquid STEEM and he is a smart guy who doesnt care about the community. This is a risk factor to all of STEEM, regardless of your theoretical points.
the theory doesnt work if the incentive system is broken. you are presupposing the incentive system is working. I tell you it is broken.
Seems you are more interested in wealth distribution than liquidity provision. I have witnessed first hand the liquidity being provided by @abit. It would not be so easy to attract a lot of liquidity for a flegling crypto on an uncertain platform.
well unless it is fixed all we will have is abit setting the price arbitrarily with 10%+ spreads we had before. this requires a human involved solution: https://steemit.com/steem/@jl777/solution-to-liquidity-points-bugs
To even be able to receive the rewards he must be providing the majority of the liquidity.
So 10% spreads are the cost of liquidity. Which is fair enough in my opinion.
The way the system currently works, liquidity is favoured over spread which makes perfect sense for a new volatile crypto.
not true. he can get the points without providing any actual liquidity by selftrading
at the level of rewards, the spread should be 0.1% or less
the current system is NOT working. that is my judgement