You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Why account values (and a few other things) are messed up
There was never any way to stop a conversion. That would complicate things greatly.
There are positives and negatives to having the function on the web site, but there are numerous guides to how to do it for people who really want to.
dont see how this is an answer to why on site conversion of SBD wasn't made readily available again without having to use third party tools.
wasn't it to be restored after peg returned closer to $1 which it has been for over 9 months
and wouldn't it have prevented recent collapse of SBD $ rate
That's entirely up to the operator of the site. Any web site is a centralized service. FYI there are many different additional blockchain functions which steemit.com does not support.
I'm mostly neutral on whether it is better or worse to have it on the web site overall (except when SBD is overvalued when it is clear to me it is worse), but it also isn't up to me.
Very doubtful, but I guess it isn't possible to say for sure. Most of the active traders, as well as largest stakeholders are well aware of how to perform the function without the web site, and many have done so.
not true see https://zeronet.io/
how many of these are important parts of the platforms economics?
overvalued or undervalued seems SBD is broken in both directions to incur a loss.
if so what is your hypothesis on how the SBD peg was broken?
seems to me the break started after HF19
I don't know what that is but someone owns that domain and runs a web server on it. That is centralized to some degree at least.
Many of them. For example delegation is has an enormous role in the economy right now and isn't supported by steemit.com. Arguably its role in the economy is far larger than SBD.
In my opinion there are two root causes:
HF19 caused some problems, yes. Because the unintended emptying of the reward pool interrupted SBD supply and this facilitated the first SBD pump. I don't know if that made a real difference or not to the much bigger pump that happened when all of crypto went lunar. There is still the very real issue of the SBD peg having limited ability to cope with rapidly increasing/increased demand. HF20 was a small improvement going forward but probably not enough (this assumes that #2 above somehow turns around otherwise it is all a moot point).
lol how can you not know about zeronet it is peer to peer network and sites are connected with public keys no central server
yes but delegation also destroyed the system by allowing bots which has damaged the system in multiple ways
1.centralising SBD to bot owners as users felt no need to keep as the value was meant to stay near $1 bot owners main motivation is wealth extraction and a large factor in the extent of SBD pump
2.users exploiting delegation for free voting which lasted nearly a year
3 . steemit inc used multiple accounts to fund bots and extract wealth while reducing quality and payouts for others
I don't know why you think I have to know about every peer to peer network. And yes, of course there are peer to peer networks that are not centralized, but I said that every web site is centralized and that includes the zeronet.io web site (not the network).
I never said delegation was "good" (at best it has been mixed in terms of positives and negatives), only that it is important to the economy and it isn't supported by steemit.com's UI. There are plenty more, like creating accounts. What is more important than people being able to invite and sign up their friends? There are ways of doing this but they involve third party sites.
I don't agree that bot owners had anything to do with the SBD pump. Most of it probably originated from Korea exchanges, but certainly from external crypto speculator exchanges. It was driven by people buying (probably using appreciated BTC profits) all sorts of alts after the huge runup in BTC, and probably not even knowing what they were buying. In fact, a number of other pegged coins were also pumped around the same time, but they generally had better ability to maintain their price. This was occurring due to factors external to Steem. What was internal to Steem is how the SBD pegging mechanism was able to respond to it (poorly).
zeronet isnt the access point it is one of the locations you can download software similar to a wallet this is how the network is accessed peer-to-peer with no central server = decentralised
you dont have to know every network but how you didn't know about namecoin that started in 2013 and was in the top 20 for years and also is one of the few that actually had a good use case from the beginning to this day.
on the source of pumps being from south korea exchanges i struggle to believe you think this as it looks like you are one of the most active traders and surely you know the least amount of supply was on korean exchanges and if price was to rise there price feed should have been discounted and other exchanges notified of outlier as it isn't a true price discovery when the least amount of the supply has the greatest effect on price
anyway the big SBD pump began on bittrex on 22 Nov 4 months after upvoting bots were going strong and was the only volume leading to price discovery as in users buying for a specific purpose.
yes multiple pegged coins have changed a lot in price and are not pegged at all SBD having the largest changes in price means it is far from a pegged asset or a stablecoin
after reviewing charts i can see SBD price deviated a lot multiple times prior to HF19 and this didn't seem to break the peg which happened proper last November
One of the Korea exchanges has a shared order book with bittrex which has the most SBD supply. In fact it was even a bit odder than that. Traders on the Korea exchange were able to trade on a shared bittrex order book but, unlike traders on Bittrex itself, were not allowed to deposit or withdraw (except maybe in KRW, I don't remember the details exactly).
Hmm. See above.
It was broken in the sense of a sustained period above $1 (with numerous spikes, one as high as $30) for a couple of months after HF19. The November pump/breakage was larger of course, due to the larger external factors in the rapidly rising crypto markets (first Bitcoin then alts).
Nevertheless in my opinion the underlying root cause of the breakages, including the one that started in November, is the lack of an upper peg. It is just that up until that point market conditions happened to be such that it wasn't needed (generally weak conditions in crypto markets, including STEEM, tended to push the price down, for which a mechanism exists, more than up).
No idea what you are talking about. I was one of the first miners of namecoin as well as one of the first people to design and develop a crypto-to-crypto exchange (which initially supported NMC and BTC and was designed to support what I expected to be a growing population of such coins) but never went live because of poor and declining market conditions and legal concerns).
Namecoin was launched in 2011 not 2013, btw.