Jump to content


Silver Member
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


tulo last won the day on February 13 2018

tulo had the most liked content!

About tulo

Recent Profile Visitors

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

tulo's Achievements

  1. To me it's bullsh*t that every account receives the same amount of ELS. Because a single person can create an unlimited amount of accounts (locking some XRP) to exploit the airdrop.
  2. Check DOT and KSM. I think a marketcap of 1/10 of the main network (FLR) is reasonable. If you put FLR in top 20 then it's 1B$ marketcap for SGB which price it at 0.07$. But it's 100% speculation and I'm not here to speculate.
  3. I think 1% weekly can be realistic in the long run. Consider that the foundation has around 5B SGB and I don't think they'll put more on FTSO. And soon F-assets will be included, which means that 2.5 times the value of the F-assets created is locked into the SGB locked for minting F-assets. So either less SGB will be locked into FTSO for minting, little amount of F-assets are created (I don't think so because it can be more profitable than FTSO) or SGB price explodes so that a little amount of SBG is needed to mint F-assets.
  4. Yeah I know, it feels bad for the reward. I'd have liked double the reward I got this epoch
  5. I think you can't compare the two. An AMM is an algorithm usually embedded in a smart contract to provide liquidity in "swaps" between two (or more) currencies. Pathfinding is an algorithm that finds the best price and liquidity path to send one currency using another one, passing by different "swaps". Technically you could use a pathfinder to find the best path from currency A to currency B using both AMM liquidity AND orderbooks liquidity (both DEX and CEX) and other kind of liquidity. Then executing the transaction and having it atomically it's a completely different story and it depends on the blockchains used. You could have a huge path sending for example 3 atomic transactions in XRPL DEX, ethereum AMMs and BSC AMMs and 2 trades in a CEX and several withdrawal/transfer between blockchains.
  6. To gain some SGB? To give less SGB to "normal" user who could dump them in the market? To allow most of the less renowed oracels to have some voting power (most of them now barely have the 47M delegated from the foundation)?
  7. Something like 800M are from the "foundation". They delegated 47M SGB to 17 different oracles. And there is a total of 1.5B delegated, so it's only 700M from users. 700M can easily come from cold storages, maybe only a few exchanges are delegating.
  8. There are around 332M SGB "staked" in FTSO right now. I don't think 115M of them come from Bitstamp itself.
  9. You basically are getting 4.1% on the 40% (LTV) of your initial capital (collateral), i.e. you are making 1.64% on your initial capital. Are you sure it's convenient? You could simply lock the initial capital in another farm and make for sure more than 1.64%. BTW it's an interesting idea, basically all the tech is out there. Only a mechanism to automatically repay the loan is needed, to avoid human intervenction every day/week/month. But there is a problem: since the rates are very often very variable, what happen if the yeld is lower than the interest?
  10. 0.6$ is much more than I was expecting. It's a market cap of 9B$, which places SGB at 18th place. Impressive. Considering it has a staking (FTSO) APY of 100-150% it might be ok, but I believe we'll se much swings until many CEX list it.
  11. Of course not. There are only 800M SGB delegated. As soon as more people will join and more tokens are available in the market (airdrop from exchanges) the reward will drop proportionally. I'd expect at least 2-3B SGB delegated, which means around 50% APY.
  12. Ideally that would be great, but in the practice it's bad. Because it would be very easy to predict the price feeds of multiple oracles (the exchanges) since it's a 1:1 with their market price. Other oracles would use that information to submit predictions for profitability. IMO the most complex and unpredictable is the price prediction of oracles the better since other oracles can't infer any information and play accordingly.
  13. Adding an epsilon based on the old estimation is a useless strategy IMO. The price of an asset can be seen as white noise so addying a bias as that has the same probability of hitting the next price as adding the negative of that delta. This unless there is a history for which an oracle has constantly a bias to the "accepted" price. BUT I'd do a different strategy which could be bad: supposing that the other oracles use exchanges' data to make the prediction I'd collect historical prices from exchanges and historical predictions, then make a model (a regression with least squares for example) of the other oracles' predictions and try to understand their future estimates. Then pick the price based on the mean of their predictions. BTW it's an interesting problem this oracle battle
  14. Do anyone know how often the oracles have to send data and how often the network "aggregates" the data?
  15. It can fail badly if the oracles use as input the previous price from other oracles. Otherwise if the price prediction is only a function of "real prices" everything should be fine because no positive feedback is in the loop. But it all depends on the algorithms they are using. What I'm more afraid is that some oracles could collude only to get the best rewards. A coalition of 4-5 oracles could shift significantly the price and the rewards IMO.
  • 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.