Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:44, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. > > It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set. > >> Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. > > You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structured so that when > the rates are wrong, they get corrected. This is done by offering nice > rewards when the rates are wrong, and so it has been doing well. The PV > was a rare extreme case of this. > Don't worry, I get it. The PBA's self adjusting rates are a good thing, and your chosen implementation of them does seem to work well in a large number of cases. I admit I was planning self-adjusting rates for the RBOA before you created the PBA, I just hadn't devised a good method of making them work. However, with that being said it still doesn't mean that the PBA's rates are inherently more accurate than the RBOA's. The PBA rates vastly reflect recent market trends, but tend to fail at modeling long-term value of assets. Because of their self-adjusting nature they can easily be skewed (for example, if the CFJ in question were decided on PBA rates, it would be a simple matter for anyone to artificially inflate or deflate those rates prior to the judgment going into effect). The RBOA's rates on the other hand tend to reflect a more stable long-term asset value. BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 19 Nov 2008, at 16:06, Geoffrey Spear wrote: PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary way of adjusting. It seems unlikely to me that the objective value of a 0 crop decreases by 25% any time someone deposits one in one bank but doesn't change at all if they deposit it in a different bank. It's an estimation that seems to work.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 10:44 AM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It's not easy to determine what's a good or bad rate unless you have > something impartial monitoring their value somehow (PBA). PBA's rate change algorithm isn't impartial, it's just an arbitrary way of adjusting. It seems unlikely to me that the objective value of a 0 crop decreases by 25% any time someone deposits one in one bank but doesn't change at all if they deposit it in a different bank.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote: Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set. Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structured so that when the rates are wrong, they get corrected. This is done by offering nice rewards when the rates are wrong, and so it has been doing well. The PV was a rare extreme case of this. Yes, I'll concede that the RBOA was scammable when it overvalued PBA coins, but now that it no longer trades in coins it should function just fine (as it had prior to the PBA). It's not easy to determine what's a good or bad rate unless you have something impartial monitoring their value somehow (PBA).
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 16:26, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them >> cheaply first. > > On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps > being scammed, etc. > Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. Yes, I'll concede that the RBOA was scammable when it overvalued PBA coins, but now that it no longer trades in coins it should function just fine (as it had prior to the PBA). BobTHJ
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On 18 Nov 2008, at 23:09, Geoffrey Spear wrote: This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them cheaply first. On the other hand, the RBoA's rates are almost always wrong, it keeps being scammed, etc. Lesser of two evils.
Re: BUS: Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJ 2254 assigned to OscarMeyr
On Tue, Nov 18, 2008 at 4:32 PM, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 18 Nov 2008, at 21:27, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > >> Gratuitous argument: it would be equitable to require the >> above-mentioned parties to purchase vote points from the other parties >> at the current RBoA rate. > > Argument: PBA. This would lead to deliberately driving down the rate to sell them cheaply first.
