pull down to refresh

33 sats \ 9 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep \ parent \ on: deleted by author AGORA

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

write
compose
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/

reply
4 sats \ 0 replies \ @optimism 2 Sep

Awesome - if you want it to be real, it'd be better as net result (i.e. the calc you do at the bottom) than as gross offer, due to the variable taxation.

reply on another page
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