I agree, the semi-floor at $1 does make it attractive for a pumper to accumulate around that price, then try to induce a pump.
This is another reason I think it's an intentional pump: the current blockchain-level mechanics for SBD and HBD do encourage it to some extent, even more than a normal low liquidity coin, where the pumper assumes more of a risk that they may experience a loss on coins they picked up in their "accumulate phase" before they initiate a pump.
So, even while the current action by the stabilizer suppresses the potential rewards from a pump quite a bit, I think it is clear we need to further increase the strength of our pegging mechanisms on the high side (most immediately, we do this by increasing the HBD supply being supplied to the stabilizer).
Also, increasing trading liquidity for HBD will discourage such attacks, because of the higher risk entailed to start a pump. But that's more of a long term thing to accomplish.
Here's the spec for the new conversion operation: https://gitlab.syncad.com/hive/hive/-/issues/129
This seems over-complicated in my opinion, more so if you account for the fact that when the operation is finalized the median price is used to make the conversion.
The comment about doing it in that way because it's good PR doesn't convince me that much. As long as the code accounts for not exceeding the 10% debt ratio it should be good enough.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
Holding the funds in a account vs just having them disappear and re-appear isn't particularly more complicated. It's a pretty trivial difference in the coding, or we wouldn't bother with it, just for PR. PR isn't perhaps the best way to put it, it also makes it easier to track how much has been locked up. Which people might be interested in.
That's a more logical explanation. Being able to track how much is in the process of conversion is a plus.
5% fees look to me high.
It should be cheaper.
To become printing on demand, the fee should be optional. Like 5% fee for instant and 0 for 3,5% days ( or longer).
So pools can play out pumpers with 0% ( can be also 0,3%) and bring the price to 1$ and not close to 1$.
we will only become a stable 1$ coin if it becomes an automatic thing.
With the same mechanic that the stabilizer proposal does. With the difference, the profit will payed out as ROI. The scale would world in an unlimited way. But fees can kill the fun.
Long term I think a replacement with a DAI version / less complex would work better.
The initial mechanics were selected because they are very simple to implement, so the new functionality could be included in the upcoming hardfork. And 5% was chosen to be conservative: it should be sufficient to prevent any big swings in the HBD peg but decreases the chance for any gaming of the system.
After we've had a chance to observe how the new mechanism works, we can consider if further changes are necessary, including more complicated implementations.
Sure it's the easiest for the short/mid-term.
5% is IMO top end for a stable coin. Otherwise, the coin can become out of competition compared to other ones.
We need large Volume, the only way I see to abuse is a pre haircut massswap with higher swings, but there is a big random component also there. There is trading less risky.
So if we don't have a problem with a large amount of HBD, we should make it cheap to create them.
Maybe I will hold some too, because 3% also nice for a stablecoin.