While I'm not happy with the actions of the zzhang group, I've never for a second considered them stupid. You can read their posts and see they are not idiots. But the leadership is very shifty, in my opinion.
Based on my evaluation of them, I have no doubt they understand the mechanics of running a pump. It's not that complicated, especially since you don't have to figure it out for yourself, you can just learn by observation. Nonetheless, that's far from arguing that they are responsible for it.
While I strongly suspect there are elements within that group that are profiting from the pumps in SBD and HBD (more from SBD, for obvious reasons), I believe they are mostly profiting from the arbitrage opportunities between the other markets and upbit (which anyone who trades on upbit can do, I'm sure they're not alone).
But to repeat the point from my post and later comment where I go into a little more detail, I think the best reason to suspect an intentional pumper is the choice of HBD as the coin to speculate on. HBD is really low on most crypto radars as a choice of a token to decide will really go up in price (i.e. selection by a dumb speculator). But like SBD, it's a very likely target for a clever pumper, due to it's low liquidity.
And arguing that zzhang would think that HBD will endlessly go up in price (i.e. blind speculation) make no sense to me, because they've had plenty of time observing SBD and HBD performance over time. The one clear rule for SBD is: what goes up, will come down.
So while you're assuming stupidity of zzhang is the most likely answer, I disagree. Mind you, in many cases stupidity can be a likely answer for many perplexing behaviors. But I think the evidence in this case argues otherwise.
Whelp hopefully we can make them pay for this manipulation.
Money talks and bullshit walks.
Can't let users get away with exploiting our network like that.
Still I have to wonder how such deep pockets could fall for such an obvious scam.
It costs a lot of money to pull this stuff off I'm surprised it's worth the risk.
to be fair, they only use it and make a profit from it.
These are the rules of the game of HBD, so if we don't like it, simply change it to supply on-demand (like collateral one). Nobody could pump and dump. over 1$? simple print more. Under 1$? simple buyback and pay the lockups back.
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
sounds sexy, where can i buy? :D
This is imo the most plausible hipotesis, as it hasn't sense if their purpose it's to attack Hive, to pump first Hive and then HBD. Actions that actually benefit more that harms this blockchain. Anyways is good to follow this movements closely.
Always crazy to look at HBD. Because I don't see a real demand for it.
But it is a secure bet for them to purge out the market and dip it over time back. Because where is the risk buy at 1$ ( longterm)?
And this is an attack vector, that wouldn't be there with supply on demand (collaterals/loans).
BTW, how fast will conversations work from HIve to HBD? 24 hours?
Posted Using LeoFinance Beta
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.