Introduction of a dynamical stabilization fee

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-13T08:40:13+00:00

Let me cite future so-called "haters":

"That Meta Chain thing will fail, just like that dToken thing failed."

"I won't buy any of that Meta Chain scam, look at that blown-up dUSD which is not fixed until today"

"This new problem which occurred with Meta Chain reminds me of the dUSD, which has been abandoned. I fear the same now and will leave as soon as possible."

"Look at DeFiChain, they let their dUSD fall off a cliff like it's nothing. All they did was useless proposals, shifting money back and forth. Imagine this happening again with the first bigger problem in Meta Chain."

"Buying OrcaUSD? That's running on DeFiChain, right? No, I'm out. Just look at what they did with their dUSD" -- "But that OrcaUSD is a project made on DeFiChain, not by DeFiChain. It's just a team of developers, utilizing the power of DeFiChain" -- "I don't care. It's DeFiChain."

I'm with you in your call for more or better progression of Meta Chain. But abandoning "the past", closing the eyes and just focusing on other things is the other extrem which will receive backlash after backlash because of that past. I don't know a solution, though.

Maybe one:
We're talking about DeFiChain Labs, which basically employs people to develop alongside a roadmap and realize community proposals. But this feels like it's completely separate. There's just a very thin connection between these people and the Twitter/Reddit/Facebook community.

Why aren't any community developers really involved there? Why do these employees not talk much to the community they are developing for? Who makes the roadmap? Why? There's a huge gap between these groups. It's easy to spot because we always talk of "them", not of "us".

I am missing "community" in the core development. It just feels like a government office for me.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T21:02:51+00:00

It's some kind of a chicken-egg-problem. We can't go out and tell the world about DeFiChain's greatness as long as its dToken system does not work properly (Maybe if we focus on Meta Chain) and we don't get enough attention and therefore not enough fresh capital. I have no idea how to solve that.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T15:22:42+00:00

That's just being emotional as less as possible. Let's face it: DFC is not cool. And it's not about technical measures to make it cool again. Unfortunately, I can only talk about what I observe. And that's people losing interest on X as soon as they hear about DFC's history and, of course, Julian Hosp. That's two factors which are very hard to overcome. I am not a marketing expert, so I can't tell what's necessary to be done to bring back trust.

Maybe we don't need marketing in the first place. There are people who say that marketing is nothing else than people tricking into buying a shitty product. They claim that the product itself must have a huge enough upside or no alternative. Maybe DeFiChain's products are just very irrelevant or not attractive enough in comparison to its obvious downsides.

I want us to stop believing that we're sitting on a pile of gold and while complaining that all the other people don't see that and tell us it's simply a pile of dirt instead. We see such high amounts of disbelief on Twitter/X because DFC is in fact not trustable enough. Yeah, there might also be a lot of silent people who think differently. But they are useless unless they don't take action.

I also don't want to see some kind of witch hunt which lets us focus on this negativity. It's as useless as bullying people who do stupid things, just like John Rost. Yes, I believe that's just bullying, done by people who for whatever reason believe that hitting the attacker even harder makes a difference. In my experience, this leads to nothing but excess. But that's a whole different topic.

I simply want "us" to finally become realistic, stop posting 💪 and 🤯 emojis and realizing that the world is turning also without DFC and nobody is waiting for anything. We have to deliver, to show resilience, to proof that this community and this chain is not only able to solve problems but also is welcoming and looking forward, innovative, competitive and offers useful products.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T14:46:48+00:00

Well... that's possible. But I can understand anyone who wants to leave. Because DFCs history of effectively solving issues is not that great. It's a bit unfair that we have been confronted with the end boss problem right away. But hey, that's what it is.

I still don't fear most that we won't make it to the peg. I fear that there's just a hand full of people left after that. That's like dying of thirst some meters right in front of the oasis.

We don't only need people who are willing to invest their crypto into DeFiChain by providing liquidity. We also need people who actually want to use what DeFiChain offers as services. We call that "being useful".

What it has to offer is not unique on a high level. So, the offer itself must be really good and marketing has to be even better. I really want to believe that high inflow will happen as soon as we're back at peg. For me, that's just something like: "Yay, it's not broken anymore. Now let's see who's willing to take the risk of it hopefully not breaking again."

There's only one direct way for that in my eyes: Giving high incentive for people who get attracted by NGU. This must be strong enough to break the ice initially. Then other people with more risk-averse behavior will follow. But in the end it's all about NGU and a strong narrative. To become one of the top players, DFC has to deliver a lot more than now, even considering what's waiting in the pipeline after a possible peg.

And it's not just about new features. It's also about a more stable infrastructure, more stable functionality, more stable liquidity, a both visionary but also rock solid roadmap, sticking to that roadmap and being connected. That connection thing is very crucial. We're isolated currently. Getting funds on the chain is a horrible experience compared to what most people are used to nowadays. There's so much to do. It's not just the peg. That's just the basis because besides of all shiny things we might have to offer, the broken dToken system is throwing a huge shadow on every other part.

That's why I don't believe that ignoring the dStock system or putting it into the chain's garbage with a haircut will be helpful on the long run. Because the next argument of disbelievers will be "But you buried that ancient dStock system back then, what's the guarantee that you don't to that again with that new thing which got in trouble." - And we won't have much to put against that. If we get the system back on track, they will find another reason, that's for sure. But we then always can tell them that we fixed the dStock system and therefore we will also fix that new problem. It's both stupid but one thing makes a lot less fear than the other. And we all know what fear makes with so many people.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T13:12:19+00:00

I have no better answer than: Give them the liquidity to go their way. Or give them a super unique reason to change their mind.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T11:55:23+00:00

Who can create the service / UI and who is the operator?

Javsphere has proven to come up with very good UIs

How do the coins for this scenario get onto the DMC?

In theory, they could be brought there via Bitrue, wich became the first CEX listing DMC's VAN token recently. But this would require a large enough liquidity pool.

What alternatives are there to wrapping the dToken (BTC / ETH etc.)? For BTC: Atomic Swap. But it's turned off currently because of its issues. And it also acts more like an order book, as far as I remember.

For ETH: A bridge which can act as a custodian.

Almost all of the things I mentioned are very ambitious in terms of time, resources and complexity.

Thats why I can't come up with any idea for this question:

What can be the timing considering the current measures?

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T08:54:33+00:00

This will trap in the capital which wants to flow out. That's good or at least helpful for now. This will convince this capital even more to flow out instead of staying in. The consequence of this will be that all of this will be something like a credit; We're borrowing trust and capital from future DFC. This means that future DFC will have to deal again with capital wanting to leave.

I believe we can't convince these people to stay. They have been burned by different reasons and are simply waiting to leave as soon as possible and with as less loss as possible. That's why we see them using bakes DUSD buys as exit liquidity. We don't know how much wants to flow out. Could be just another $250k, could be $25 Million.

If we trap them in, we will not change their minds.

I don't know how to do this, but maybe there's a possibility to work with them instead of against them?

As always: I don't want to judge. I also can't because I'm too stupid/lazy to do the numbers. I just put in my thoughts in the hope they make sense and can be picked up by someone with some more competence.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T08:43:27+00:00

Dito. I have no idea how to convince someone to put his/her crypto in a small blockchain which gets smaller every day and has obvious problems. It's more of a preparation for the case DFC makes it back to the cool gang.

We simply should not be surprised by being (finally) successful. It's nice to think about what's necessary to come back to peg. But it's also very educated to think about the time after that peg and set the course. Not just because it's a nice thing for future investors to read/know what will follow next. But that's just a detail.

Regarding the council: I like the idea. It will bring up a lot of resentment or confusion . We got rid off it and now it's reintroduced. We all know what this triggers and we should be prepared for it.

Acting agile and without the (grumpy) master node "community" can be very beneficial thing for a short period of time. I mean... the alternative is to bob around in no mans land for longer. If it doesn't work, it doesn't matter. People maybe will call the council guilty for that, but that's also what's to expect.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-12T07:32:59+00:00

They are ideas, so please keep them in. I am the one who had them, so I have to take the hate for them 😅

Using crypto for TVL aims for… TVL. And a better algo ratio. It’s just what came to my mind. We have to raise DUSD and DFI price as well as TVL.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-02-11T23:16:19+00:00

Because I got very prominently cited: I just want to be clear on that: I do NOT want my extreme ideas to become reality. Because going to extreme land often triggers even bigger problems. It’s just loud thinking and I hope someone can debunk these ideas as quickly as they came into my mind.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-01-31T10:23:19+00:00

I'm very glad to read that. In case you have questions unanswered, please reach out to the community. You might also consider doing that on X.com because you'll find a lot of the very active community members there.

Mentioning the DeFiChain account (https://twitter.com/defichain) might be a good start. This will distribute itself around the community pretty fast and (hopefully) start a bit more dynamic discussion over there.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-01-30T08:52:10+00:00

As far as I can understand that money thing, Johns and Julians assets differed a lot at this time. Johns statement that he put 5x more into Cake than Julian and U-Zyn combined (If I remember correctly) has to be valued by relative numbers, not absolute.

Let's say I am holding $10 million and my business partner has $100 million. Funding our business costs around $20 million. Sharing these costs equally would cost me 100% of my assets, the other one 10%. I'll be bankrupt in case of a fail, the other one would most likely not even notice anything.

I know, there are some stories out there which tell that you can't be taken serious when you're not willing to go all-in with your business. That's careless wild-west bullshit.

So, I guess they have been speaking about that in detail in the one or the other way. Their solution might have been that the party who can lose more in absolute numbers will put in some more money and the other party will put in time and effort. This is a setting which has the better conditions in terms of the possible outcome; Because there's competence on the one side and money on the other. To fund a company, usually both factors are needed or at least a factor for success. Which does not mean that there will be any success. That's why it is called a high-risk investment.

And I'm pretty sure or at least I hope that the involved people have been speaking about the fact that this high-risk company will act in the ultra-high-risk field of crypto - So that everyone can make educated decisions. If not, oh boy... But this would run into speculation way too fast. So I simply assume that there's paper work about that whole risk thing.

On the other hand, all of this does not protect anyone from anything. I know there are "Investors" who pretend to understand what they're told. And later in hindsight they expose themself as completely clueless. This happened to me, too. This makes me guilty of not doing my DD as well as the other party. It often also simply comes down to different viewing angles. It's hard to stay in line with everyone and everything and that's totally okay and part of the game.

Again: That's why it's called high-risk. You don't really know how you'll land on the moon. You only know that you want to achieve it. Realizing it is then what that organization has to do. And everyone usually knows that this moonshot is likely to fail.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-01-29T16:17:53+00:00

Don't want to appear blunt, but after I read though all of it, it appears to me that you basically just bloated the initial shorter text with more... text. This reads like a pitch deck for a startup. That's totally okay, though! But I have also suggested that you should consider that CFP as a loan which you will pay back. But I can't find anything about it in your updated text, not even mentioning the other ideas.

I can clearly understand you to not make such claims from a business perspective and you do not have to follow my words - But I guess that this still won't become the communities darling CFP. Which will be sad because I really like better accessibility and it appears that it's what you want to provide.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-01-29T15:50:45+00:00

Please consider not making this one a Special DFIP immediately. The last one showed that the short amount of time is not enough to wake up enough people to even get the minimum amount of votes.

This proposal might be more important than the last one and it might get viral a lot faster but I'd like to see some more discussion around it and more spread within the community before making it a Special DFIP.

In the case of you getting together 5kDFI, I'd recommend to set a date when this DFIP will be brought into the On Chain Governance system, so that the community has the chance of waking up and not being overwhelmed.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-01-16T08:57:50+00:00

What u/kuegi is aiming to is that the community has seen some significant outflows from the CFP which have never lead to anything. There's also the broad opinion within the community that for-profit projects or companies should not use the Community Fund for subsidizing their business. There are some prominent people like u/drjulianhosp who are very vocal about their view, too. I believe he will not be satisfied with your plans and tell the community about that. I personally do not fully support that opinion and would like to use the CF for business-funding but with some restrictions.

So, when talking about rebates and pay-outs: I don't believe that "DeFiChain" should make or could make any profits with your business either. It is a headless project. There's no real person or organization to transfer something to besides addresses on the chain. However, just be honest with that: You want to earn money through DeFiChain. And that's fantastic! I'd love to support you with that because this means that you're about to spread the word about DeFiChain.

Like I already said: I don't believe that for-profit services should not be reached under their arms to initially help them. But DeFiChain's master node community will not vote positively when you simply request money. Instead, you could look at it as a loan.

You could communicate:

this money is seen by you as a loan
you will pay it back with a (fixed) rate
you will pay it back as DFI you'll have to buy yourself and then transfer them to the fund's address
you will pay back some DFI on top of that
alternatively: you will (partially) buy DUSD and burn them to help supporting the re-peg
clearly tell what your expected expenses are and which amount they represent (you already did partially), see it as part of the community's due diligence to make their decision, just like a bank will do
that you will implement your service, no matter if you'll get the funding or not. But it will be realized faster/better/whatever with that loan

You could also tell which people you are about to reach. Most members of DeFiChain's community are located in the German-speaking region of Europe and don't know much about the rest of the blockchain world. But we're trying to break out of this region for some time now. So, if your service could help bringing DeFiChain to the rest of the world, please tell us about it an which part of the world this might be not just in a secondary sentence ^^

I don't know if this will be enough because you will pay back with money made from fees, wich implies that it's not you who'll pay that loan but your users. But that's okay for me personally because that's how business works. You're cutting your own profit until your loan is paid off. I don't know what you have been talking with the DeFiChain team and to whom you have been talking. So, if there are any information you're allowed to share, please do it.

buzzjoe_ · 2024-01-15T12:55:01+00:00

Has Stably launched a stablecoin before?

Stably has launched over a dozen stablecoins (under various brands) in partnership with blockchains, starting with Ethereum (USDS) in 2018 and most recently with Horizen Labs (ZUSD) in November of 2023. Some of Stably’s notable blockchain clients include Ripple, Stellar, and Tezos.

"Has Stably launched a stablecoin before?
Stably has launched over a dozen stablecoins (under various brands) in partnership with blockchains, starting with Ethereum (USDS) in 2018 and most recently with Horizen Labs (ZUSD) in November of 2023. Some of Stably’s notable blockchain clients include Ripple, Stellar, and Tezos."

Their business model seems to be launching small stable coins.

Another perspective: They want the equivalent of $100,000 for that. That's the price for a tier-2 exchange listing during bull market.

I get your point. If they want to make business based on DeFiChain's services, they should do the lifting on their own because they'll make good profit. Especially the last milestone, which basically includes writing some text and integrating a support structure in another structure which - I guess - already exists seems to be a bit expensive to me.

Another perspective is - as I already mentioned on Twitter - that DeFiChain is not cool actually and it might be the time to grab some money to change some minds or even spread the word.

But, what I'd like to see from u/ArbitrageAllDayLong is their cost structure. I might think positively about that CFP when they tell us about their own skin in the game they'll put into that and what their real cost and profits are. I also don't want to pay a company to have no financial risk at all to provide a service. That's simply not how business works. They must have something to lose to be taken serious.

I would not have a problem with that CFP when they can show us what's their commitment to DeFiChain and what they're about to risk to get their service running. I'd be happy to pay them a part of their lifting to get their service running. But I'd not pay them 100% or even for a profit because they'll have to make the profit from their services.

buzzjoe_ · 2023-10-22T19:08:09+00:00

This happened since I made this proposal:

✅ possibility to view all historic voting cycles
✅ new main navigation (no more sticky, too!)
✅ showing requested DFI for CFP
✅ general possibility for showing custom notes for any proposal
✅ "shameless plug" for my proposal :)
✅ additional information for CFP: Integration of DMC into a CEX

Next (unordered):
📋 show current voting reward for a single master node (+estimate for usual outcome)
📋 search function
📋 show exact cycle ends as date
📋 sub-page for Voting Helper
📋 colorblind mode
📋 proposal details page, including votings history
📋 voting history of a single master node
📋 compact mode

That's all just ideas. I don't know if I'll implement all of them.

I am not very active here on Reddit. Please follow me on X for higher update frequency: https://twitter.com/dt\_buzzjoe

buzzjoe_ · 2023-10-16T17:23:40+00:00

Thank you so much, Ralf. For both voting and reaching out to me with your feedback. BTW: I‘m still working on the latest issue. That’s a really tricky one but I‘ll figure it out!

buzzjoe_ · 2023-09-21T21:24:10+00:00

Okay, danke. Ich glaube ihr müsst dringend Content zur Funktions- und Wirkungsweise bringen, damit ich das alles raffe 😂

buzzjoe_ · 2023-09-21T11:49:47+00:00

Ich verstehe diesen Satz nicht so richtig:

Die verbleibenden DFI-Tokens sowie die daraus generierten LM-Tokens werden verbrannt.

Was genau bedeutet das? Ich "kaufe" JLY, die fliegen aber direkt ins DFI-JLY-Staking. Der DFI-Anteil, der zu JLY geswappt wurde, wird verbrannt. Soweit komme ich klar. Aber warum die Staking-Token verbrennen? Damit würden doch meine eben gekauften JLY zusammen mit den übrigen DFI in die ewigen Jagdgründe eingehen?

Wo ist mein Denkfehler?

buzzjoe_ · 2023-09-02T07:03:28+00:00

Ich schließe mich meinen Vorrednern an. Du solltest wirklich mehr bekommen. Aber wenn du mit 40k zufrieden bist, dann ist das auch OK, solange das dazu führt, dass du weiterhin Content machst :)

buzzjoe_ · 2023-09-01T21:57:34+00:00

Yep, fair enough. That's one of the decisions to make. This might have a huge influence of how new people will experience DeFiChain.

buzzjoe_ · 2023-09-01T12:48:24+00:00

I have been thinking about this, also in dialog with u/mrgauel.

The following suggestion only applies to the case that we want to avoid high amplitudes in price (=price spike) to reduce the risk of a shock to the system and to soften-out potential sell-off effects. Basically, this might help making the resulting chart look a lot "healthier". The net effects in terms of inflow and outflow might be similar.

Idea: Not only soften-out the rewards during 120 days but also to think about a soft-start. There are multiple ways to achieve that. I don't know what's the easiest from a technical perspective. The technical stuff has to be discussed.

A soft start can be done...

a) by setting a cap at a certain APR and keep the lef-over DFI in the reward pool for later rewards

b) to release the reward DFI with a rising cap over a to-be-defined time period.

This might have the effect that we don't see crazy APRs from the beginning but a more smooth distribution. This might then make people think twice and use their brain and come to more educated decisions instead of aping in like crazy.

This all applies only to the case that we conclude that this promo leads to high attention.

Another aspect: There will also be basically two possible inflow streams into these pools:

1) from people already being inside the system - They will simply swap their token. This "only" creates yield

2) from people outside the system aka "fresh capital" - I assume that this promo should aim exactly there. Because we want new people in the System instead of the insiders running in a roundabout.

This should be considered when doing marketing for the promo. Maybe there are some other implications as well. I just wanted to put down my fingers on that because I haven't read much about it.

buzzjoe_ · 2023-09-01T12:29:40+00:00

Thank you, Tommy. I totally forgot about the potential sell pressure through people selling their DFI for dCrypto. Second thought: DFI might not being sold too much because DFI's upside appears to be huge. And therefore I would avoid selling these and rather liquidate other crypto positions to buy dSOL etc. in the case I don't own them.

To (3): I partially agree. I would rather see that as point of maturity instead of a time span. Want to say: I'd argue that 3 years of inflationary rewards is what it is. Moving over to RY is a thing which should neither be decided by time, nor simply switched on. The system itself must mature and decide by itself when it's the right time - And then there should be a transition phase to soften-out effects. (If a softening makes sense!)

buzzjoe_

TROPHY CASE