pull down to refresh
If you'd like to follow MostroEuropa, talk with the community, ask questions or help us grow the market, join us on Telegram:
https://t.me/MostroEuropaCommunity
New orders are also published automatically there, so it's an easy way to keep an eye on the market.
More participants, more orders, more chances to trade.
I noticed the number too. 5k is a pretty serious downzap 😅
No idea who did it or why though, so I wouldn't read too much into the motive without more data.
If you're actually seeing the same thing repeatedly on self-custody/no-KYC posts, that would be interesting to track.
Peach because I thought it was a regulated exchange, and I figured I'd just use one of the big ones if I was going to go that route.
Its possible that these sorts of things will always have a target on them and therefore always be somewhat temporary in nature. They exist while no big government person is paying attention to them, and then they get stamped out and we move on to something new.
Then you should really try Mostro :)
If you've used Bisq, I think you'll find it interesting. No regulated company in the middle, non-custodial, and anyone can spin up a coordinator. It's basically one of the experiments we're talking about in this thread.
Yes, Mostro is actually one of the experiments I had in mind.
And I think your concern about consolidation is the important one.
Having a protocol that allows anyone to run a coordinator doesn't automatically give you decentralization. If eventually most liquidity and users converge around a handful of well-known coordinators, you've recreated obvious pressure points — just at a different layer.
The interesting outcome would be exactly what you describe: hundreds or thousands of coordinators, where spinning up a new one is cheap, permissionless and normal, and losing one doesn't really matter to the network.
Whether users and liquidity naturally converge instead is probably the real experiment.
Maybe the hardest part isn't making P2P permissionless at the protocol level. It's preventing convenience, reputation and liquidity from centralizing it again at the social layer.
That's pretty much the distinction I was trying to get at.
Peach is interesting precisely because they tried to build inside the legal framework while preserving self-custody and KYC-free trading. And for several years, apparently, it worked.
But what's happening now shows the weakness of that compromise: if your permissionless properties ultimately depend on a regulator continuing to interpret the rules the same way, they aren't really permissionless properties.
I think the more interesting question is what comes after that realization.
A protocol you can launch and walk away from is probably the endgame for censorship resistance. But getting there while retaining usable dispute resolution, reputation and protection against scammers is the difficult part.
That's where I think the current experiments in P2P Bitcoin get really interesting.
Yes, this is exactly the kind of thing I was asking about.
I agree. If the coordinator also gets to dictate which relays clients must use, we're moving part of the dependency we're trying to remove into another layer.
Ideally the coordinator should coordinate the trade, while clients retain as much control as possible over how they reach the Nostr network.
That's actually one of the things I like about thinking of the coordinator as replaceable infrastructure rather than “the platform.”
Thanks — good point.