I think you don’t have a grasp of how long it would take to build something like this. If we spend 1 month building, testing, and auditing something like this, that’s 1-2 months we don’t spend building products, to decentralize something in theory that does not have a centralization risk in reality. We have $700Mn TVL in the platform now and burned like $10 million USD over the past year. Was there a problem? No. So why should we should spend 1-2 months to build a feature to decentralize control over an occasional 500k liquidation treasury, a feature that would only serve to make a few users feel better because it would fully check off their decentralization checkbox.
Then after we build it, many users will come out of the woodwork and say we aren’t doing any real work because we spent a month without updating anything else and they don’t appreciate a feature like this, which they would be making a fair point about. That’s already happened in the past even when we built features that many users asked for like LYF add collateral, partial closing, P/L, Fantom launch, etc.
When you run a business, you have to choose where to most wisely spend team resources and this idea would be an unwise direction for resource spend. As I’ve said the last time the same thread creator brought this up, decentralization exists on a spectrum. We don’t need to be 100% decentralized and afaik, such a protocol does not exist in DeFi currently.
For example, the team created the Discourse account where these forum threads are being discussed currently. Should we have done that creation by committee, done a vote, put the account access under a multi-sig? If anything thinks yes to that, then to be frank, you’re dealing with someone with either clinical paranoia or a lack of ability to prioritize within the constraints of reality.
Is this reply pointed at me? Yes I have the grasp of how long this will take, don’t underestimate your community, there are many devs in it FYI. My point is that it will not be solved by just making the burns automatically, it just wont!
I’m not a supporter of this proposal at all. Dev time should be spend on use cases / functionalities not on trivial stuff like this.
My comments are just theoretical (like in an ideological way). If it’s meant for me I don’t understand why you have to be so demeaning to community members…
I always like this kind of discussions because it make me think about something new, so thanks all, but I do agree that Dev time should be on product development and platform growth features, I see no need to change how the burn mechanism is working.
Not pointed at you. I was replying to anyone who thinks this is a good idea. As long as a person understands the cost of this, and understands the implications of the tradeoff which I pointed out in my last post, then I think it’s clear it’s not a worthwhile resource investment.
Given this burn rate, all the liquidation treasury we have would be used in 2-3 months. And this was a treasury that was built up from an un-common large market correction back in May.
In majority of the cases, the liquidation treasury is much smaller and will be used up in 1 - 2 weeks
Are you worried about provoking a Sangwich attack? look at the wicks on the alpaca binanze chart, is that normal? Thousands of alpacas are constantly listed on Binance by arbitrageurs. Burning ransoms certainly won’t make things worse.
And what’s the problem with buying on deep? and burning as you want for marketing? After all, these deflationary weeks are purely marketing and, as a result, do not carry value for long-term holders, because the number of tokens does not decrease, and the value, as we see from the market, does not increase. But I don’t understand the point of waiting for a bull market to start buying back and thereby buy back fewer coins.
Crypto prices have dropped significantly over the past few days. If we bought “deep” aka where people mistakenly thought was low, based on the opinions of the people in this thread over the last few weeks, would ALPACA holders have been better off?
No one is authorized to say where the tops and bottoms are, but we can follow a policy to maximize deflationary weeks.
188000000 - 175,253,357 = 12746643 Of which 6,000,000 warchest turns out inflation remained in the region of 6,746,643. Buy back in the region of 0.19 and now there are both volumes and liquidity and there will be no attacks, and why be afraid to let speculators earn money, lets help not only bears to earn money for speculation. We will have a wallet with 4,473,684 which will definitely be enough to deflate to the end. Your arguments please
I cannot understand your principledness in this matter, from what we saw your strategy did not work, why do you continue to hold on to it, this raises many questions. Most of community would like to see big buyouts now that the market is capitulating. You can continue to burn inflation + 1-2% but redeem more coins.
What you just said makes no sense. If we followed your advice last week, we would’ve had fewer coins for this week’s buys now that prices have dropped. That’s a fact.
The fact is that I didn’t tell you anything last week and I’m not trying to guess loy, I’m saying that you can continue to use your strategy, while buying back cheap tokens, do you think that alpaca is undervalued now? or don’t you think so? I gave you the numbers, can you refute them?
We do burn so as to maintain deflation, regular and steady–like our approach to our security and products. We don’t pretend to be traders who try to call tops and bottoms. That’s not our role nor do we want to be in that role. That’s what degen teams do for treasury management, and if you want to know what happens to teams who manage funds like that, you only need to look at Celsius.
Sam you are saying the right things! and I support you, but why do you ignore math? You know alpaca and its tokenomeka better than me, and you know that the issue of emission alpacas and their inflation can be closed today. Also, this is not a margin and completely different things, we are not talking about the search for profit, we are talking about deflation
Thanks for your support. It sounds like you’re suggesting to change the emissions schedule but if that’s the case, it should go into a different topic.
of course not, marketing is important and if we continue to burn a little more inflation until it ends, it’s good, because in treasuries there may already be an alpaca ready for this. That’s exactly what I was talking about.
I also think, as the whole community is sure, that the alpaca is underestimated by the market, and for me personally, and I think many would be calmer if the treasuries already had alpacas and not the dollars that the project earns on an ongoing basis, the dollar is not deflationary, but alpaca yes!