reply on: Sat Standard Report 001 \ stacker news ~meta

pull down to refresh

42 sats \ 7 replies \ @ek OP 27 Jan \ parent \ on: Sat Standard Report 001 meta

It is. There are currently ~1m credits sitting in user balances but I am not sure how much that says. I think it's more relevant how much sats vs credits are received per item. 👀

41 sats \ 0 replies \ @denlillaapan 27 Jan

How variable is that number?

I understand that the CCs in principle decay very fast (usage comes with fee to territory owners and rewards and those payments are translated into real sats). But if the velocity of the average CC isn't that high, it changes the dynamic a little

0 sats \ 0 replies \ @k00b 27 Jan

I don't think this total excludes the CCs that @sn holds which is >200k.

0 sats \ 4 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

just for the sake of transparency!

21 sats \ 3 replies \ @k00b 27 Jan

I don't disagree. But it's kind of weird request to hear when no one asked how many sats we had in custody before the change.

0 sats \ 2 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

This is a vastly different situation. Unlike CCs, the sats SN held in custody were transferable at any time and not minted by the SN. Furthermore, the SN has the unilateral ability to mint CCs without any oversight. I'm not suggesting SN intend to do this, but it's a key difference.

21 sats \ 1 reply \ @k00b 27 Jan

We “minted” custodial sats from noncustodial ones. We could’ve “minted” more than we received. We could’ve fractionally reserved them.

The ONLY difference is CCs cannot be withdrawn. I can’t tell why that’d make us more likely to misbehave but that’s okay. I just found it “weird” that this is suddenly a concern.

154 sats \ 0 replies \ @0xbitcoiner 27 Jan

It's not primarily a concern, but increased transparency benefits stackers and improves security. If someone were to exploit a bug and mint CCs, public data would enable greater community oversight and faster detection.