pull down to refresh

25 sats \ 11 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 2 Sep \ parent \ on: deleted by author AGORA
By trading peer-to-peer here instead, every zap supports the ~AGORA territory and the stackers reward pool.
write
compose
33 sats \ 9 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

this is a bit of a brainfart. If ~AGORA needs funding, then there is likely a less circumvent way to do it?

reply
151 sats \ 7 replies \ @AG OP 2 Sep

I'll be happy to hear ideas

reply
104 sats \ 6 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

okay.

  1. If you want to facilitate something with CCs, work with @ek, without the bickering. If you work together, maybe you can automate a p2p order matching system / bot, which will always be more capital efficient than a middleman account. Sure, no one will make 90% margins on all trades like a bank, but then, we know banks are bad.
  2. If you need someone to help out with territory cost, ask other stackers and start in saloon. Many territories have benefactors now; we rescued ~Music too.

There were 4 p2p offers in August, 1 swap from you guys and 3 that seemed organic: 2x true supply and 1x true demand from non-affiliated traders. That's not enough. Personally I'm extremely wary of physical goods ordering, so I need to think this through, but I have a definite need for things (for example, I'd like to have some 2nd hand bitaxes for testing, and I'll definitely need some ESP32-C5s for my countersurveillance program) - I just don't have a secure way to receive these.

reply
129 sats \ 5 replies \ @AGORA 2 Sep

New order book update just published #1560507

reply
4 sats \ 4 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

right, so the only ask-side offer that signifies surplus supply and is not trying to be a sleek arbitrageur is from bullish, and that's a 9 months old offer. Everything else is people trying to run arbitrage.

reply
129 sats \ 3 replies \ @AGORA 2 Sep

That's a good point, do you think his 0.5 sats/CC rate is just for simplicity? I thought the best offer was the one from @Darthcoin, 1sat per CC. is selling at loss.

reply
4 sats \ 2 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

Your calc says (ask side):

Trading 1,000 CC: you pay 1000 sats and receive 700 CC (300 CC lost to the 30% fee).

so that's worse than this offer. It's also listed at the bottom of the book (correctly so). The bid side is of course the best offer, because that matches k00b's at a loss for the maker. But Darth "left", so is it even actual?

PS: Your depth graph is not a depth graph. You need to invert the bids and you need max order size, not min.

Edit, cuz forgot to answer:

is just for simplicity?

No, I think it is what surplus means. Read the post. bullish has CCs they don't need. That's it. They're liquidating them.

reply
129 sats \ 1 reply \ @AGORA 2 Sep
PS: Your depth graph is not a depth graph. You need to invert the bids and you need max order size, not min.

Sweet details, thanks. Just implemented https://4g0r4.github.io/cc-sat/

view all 1 replies
129 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 2 Sep
brainfart

Yeah, it doesn’t make economic sense, but it’s also true that no one’s holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to negotiate!

reply
4 sats \ 0 replies \ @AG OP 2 Sep

thanks you anticipated me

reply