Jump to content


Silver Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


jbjnr last won the day on January 21 2019

jbjnr had the most liked content!

About jbjnr

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

jbjnr's Achievements

  1. AFAIK The codius/Hotpocket stuff being developed for xrp run containerized blockchains on subnetworks. These can hold secret keys and therefore sign transactions.
  2. If I were writing the script, I'd be initially looking for batches of addresses that were all created from the same parent wallet (or close hierarchy of ancestors as they would probably create N wallets and NxM sub wallets and you'd want to identify the M's in clumps and look back to see if they are related to other batches. Then look at time of creation, if many wallets are being created from wallets in close proximity timewise, then they would be flagged. Then look at trustline creation - if all the wallets are created, then have one transaction shortly after in time where the trustline was set...Then look at absolute time - are they all done in the few weeks before a well known airdrop and in relatively consecutive ledgers? If you created many wallets (like me), several years ago, at random times, or in small batches, and then only set a trustline very recently - you'd not be flagged. You'd want to try to be careful about wallets being created by exchanges, xumm, etc as there's many people using them and as a airdrop approaches, they will naturally start spawning child wallets, so careful filtering would be needed ... Now if they started a few weeks ago and randomized things a bit - it might be tough - and now that airdrops of native xrpl tokens (as opposed to balance snapshots like flare) are becoming more commonplace, they can reuse these wallets in future for other ones. ledger bloat.
  3. run a script over the addresses to get creation time and parent wallet info (might need more ancestry if the bots have been careful), blacklist lots of accounts that appear to have been created from clusters of 'bot-like' wallets, some unfortunate people might lose out if they are unlucky and get caught in the crossfire and are classified as a bot account when they're not. When they reduced the ledger reserve from 20xrp they were opening the doors a little wider to this kind of thing. Plus Xumm making it easy for everyone to open trustlines and mint their own tokens has caused a flood of new crap-coins to appear. Such is life, if it can be gamed, it will be.
  4. Please forgive me for being belligerent yesterday - You are of course right in the sense that providing those feeds is providing a 'service' to the network and adding 'value' in the sense that it is something useful that is needed. Clearly the designers think so too, because inflation of 10% is being given to people delegating to those price feeds, and that isn't a step taken lightly. They can't give tokens to the internals that monitor the state, so vote delegation is a proxy for that. I really meant value in the monetary sense. the $ flowing into the system (fees) and $ going out of the system (token sales + inflation). If the network proves useful, then that value will be manifest. In my rant yesterday, I skipped another important detail - $ can flow into the system purely due to 'perceived value' - what @Seoulite refers to and ... I get upset by this constant reference to 'yield' on all these networks. It's only yield if $$$ is flowing into the network, otherwise it's just ponzi-conomics. You don't know that. I'm talking out of my arse as much as everyone else on this forum. The very first thing you see on the flare homepage is "Unlocking value". What they don't say is "By locking up 2.5x the amount you free". We are not in disagreement about enabling dumb chains, but the unlocking value is the first thing you see and the first thing hugo talks about when justifying flare. [I know that I'm wrong about the economics of these blockchains, because I don't think BTC can keep going up, and yet it does, it leaks value massively, Ethereum seems to have no real business cases bringing true value in, and neither do most of the other blockchains, yet here we are, at 2 trillion market cap]. NB. In my rant of yesterday, I erroneously said rewards on creating f-assets- but I mean collateralizing them with FLR. My apologies to adding to the confusion.
  5. No. All the FTSO does is provide price feeds. It is the job of the state connector to take proof of payment from one network onto flare so that chains can interoperate 'trustlessly' No value creation going on there. Thankyou @thinlyspreadAt least someone get's it - but It's not the locked collateral that will add value - it is the fees charged for minting those F-Assets. This is the only way that value can really enter the system. FTSO rewards are produced by inflation, which sucks value away as (or if) people sell continuously. F-Assets rewards (and I cannot find details that make sense on where they actually come from or at what rate) will be paid to people to hold f-assets (because lets face it why would anyone lock up all their collateral unless they were being paid to do so) - and these will suck value out of the system. The only value going into the system is the fees paid to mint those F-assets. With 10% inflation, plus f-asset rewards (please someone tell me how much and if they are included in the 10%) - then the input to the system has to be greater than 10% per annum - that means that if the system has value currently at (say 5 billion - which is roughly the SGB network as I write this), then people must generate fees worth >$500million by minting assets to drive value upwards. With the fees on minting being (we're told in the whitepaper, but do we actually believe anything in that document?) at 5% of the amount minted, that means that 20*$500million worth of f-assets must be minted ($10billion) - which in turn means the valuation of FLR itself has to be much higher to support that in the form of collateralization. Now the question is - who is going to want to mint $10billion and pay $500million in fees for F-assets? The people who want to use the network of course. Now when the queue of people wanting to mint assets forms, that's when you know it's a good investment, so far, I'm only seeing flare finance, and they are just minting more coins out of thin air, not generating any actual value through economic activity). The purpose of Flare is to unlock all that locked up capital on (smart contract free) blockchains - but it has to lock up 2.5x the value to do it. Slightly ironic. So to get that $10billion of f-assets locked up, FLR will need to be worth in excess of $25billion to do it. Anything less than this and the system leaks value, but it's more complex than that because there is feedback in (at least) two places. The f-assets system is collateralized by FLR and the inflation rate decreases value of FLR, which decreases the collateral value - which affects the baseline of our deflation assumptions - and now I've forgotten what I wanted to add about the second feedback loop. I'm writing this of the top of my head, so it's all probably wrong anyway - it not like anyone cares about this stuff anyway. If everyone wants to lock up their valuable tokens and get F-tokens in return, and pay 5% (on each lockup), then all is well, but if the system has to pay out %10 annually to make them do it, then it's going to take a lot of "economic activity" to make that pay net positive (that's a lot of crypto kitties). You can't simply assume that (say) $50billion worth of BTC and XRP locked up, drives the FLR price rise to match the collateral, because the cashing out will constantly drive down the price. (there's a feedback loop there, as dropping price requires more FLR locked as collateral and rising, requires less). (If someone wants to generate $50billion worth of f-assets, but there isn't enough FLR to do it ...) I think a proper simulation of the price dynamics is in order, cos it's all a bit much to assess without a formal analysis. If nobody uses the system and needs F-assets, then the value goes to zero. If the system becomes popular and lots of f-assets are minted, then fees (and indirectly collateral) add value. What else have I missed? Please someone check my maths, because I must have missed something obvious. And, yes, I'm quite aware that none of this matters anyway, because it's crypto and everyone can only see free $$$ tokens and this is enough to drive the price to the moon as they anticipate their boundless rewards.
  6. That only works in markets where regulators actually make rules and people abide by them. Crypto is not part of that yet. Why not ask the SEC to sue those exchanges that are not handing out free tokens? And whilst you're at it, why not ask the flare finance team to disclose their identities since the exchanges will be wanting to not hand out free tokens from them soon as well.
  7. "At the moment, at least 13 high-profile companies have applied to the SEC to launch a Bitcoin ETF and are currently awaiting an answer. And ETF experts say it is likely one will, at last, get approved on October 18. The ProShares Bitcoin Strategy ETF is the one currently slated for an October 18 deadline. " Source. some random crypto news site that probably didn't fact check anything. Warning - neither did I.
  8. As the others have mentioned, votes/rewards are capped. But bear in mind that the voting epoch started on Sat, so new votes going to A-FTSO shouldn't (if we're to believe the rules that nobody really explains) make any difference until the next epoch starts. I myself delegated to #2 and #3 on the list this time because I was worried that millions might pick A-FTSO at the last minute and go over the threshold before the epoch started. [Not wanting to be too gloaty or anything, but "my sell the lot and earn % on stuff I don't own" strategy is going rather well, getting almost 1.8% on something I already sold, and at the same time, got 12% (so far?) on the stuff I bought. I'm giving this a trip-advisor * * * * * 5 star "must try" rating ]. edit: change 2.5% to 1.8% because I did it wrong
  9. Well, I've bitten the bullet. It's Sat morning, I've claimed all my rewards from last week and I've started earning for this week. I unwrapped everything, sent it all to bitrue and traded it for xrp. If XRP moons or SGB tanks, then all is well. If SGB moons and/or XRP tanks, then I am happy to have more xrp than I used to, but we'll see next Thurs morning what the state of play is. I've now sold 100% of my SGB (less couple of coins to keep 'just in case' for transactions costs - (but still earning 1-2% on my sold stash!)). [The 50% of SGB I traded for XRP in week 1, is relatively speaking worth 60% more than the 50% I just sold, so I don't feel much pain about losing the rest of my SGB and I can still buy back prior to 5th Nov at these prices without any loss]
  10. Yes. This is the problem. In principle, every transaction issued by an account might alter the total WSGB in that account (and destination accounts) and so the smart contract would essentially need to track every transaction on every wallet all the time to monitor the WSGB amounts continuously. The original whitepaper didn't have any of this guff about voting/reward epochs and clearly things have morphed considerably from the original ideas. I like the idea that you can sell on Sat, but back Thu morning and try to manipulate the prices in between - Let's hope this results in more incentives for FTSO feeds to be gamed as well. Does anyone know what's going on with the 51 nests problem that is being mentioned on discord? I can't wade through all that, but it looks like transitioning to the next phase of flare finance is being held up by non-closed nests ....
  11. Yes. This is what I understood. The % delegation is locked in to the providers you selected - but I did not see anywhere that it says that you continue to receive rewards even after moving the tokens away, only that when transferring from one wallet to another, the % delegation to providers is honoured (and I assumed, on the new amounts in the wallet).
  12. You misunderstand me. Sarcasm yes, but only because I accused you of drinking the wrong tea, so it wasn't the most vicious slander really, but I wanted to add some drama to my day. My apology was sincere. I thought you must be an idiot, but it was I who was incorrect. I can't really believe anyone would build a rewards system on top of tokens you've possibly sold already - but if that's the way it is, then so be it. I will be investigating ways of gaming this (but not announcing anything here).
  13. Dear @BillyOckhamplease accept my apologies for the vicious slander I inflicted upon you. If there are more than one of you that believe this, then it must be true and I'm wrong. This changes things. I will buy SGB every Thurs morning, lock in my delegations and sell it on Saturday, earn % income during the week and speculate on price movements of other tokens meanwhile (the xrp I bought with my SGB went up significantly, this could be interesting). Anyone who designs a system that allows you to earn % on tokens you don't have deserves the highest respect!
  14. Sorry, but you've been drinking the wrong tea. The only thing that happens at the start of the epoch is the %delegation to providers is locked. If you move the SGB, wrap, unwrap etc, then rewards will change dynamically. As it happens, I sold 50% before the start of the next epoch, so I was not expecting any rewards from them.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.