Topic: Just-Dice.com : now with added CLAMs : Play or Invest - page 56. (Read 454769 times)

I guess that depends on whether you are asking for a better or worse price than is currently on offer.

If you put in an order to sell CLAM for more than someone is willing to pay for them for right now, that's a limit order, and it will stay in the orderbook until it is matched.

If you put in an order to sell CLAM for less than someone is willing to pay for them right now, that's a market order, and at least some of it will be filled immediately.

Ahhh, I see now. The "Limit" is the normal buy/sell on places like Cryptsy then. That explains the confusion. Thanks, .

An order to buy or sell can either be a "market" order, or a "limit" order. A market order means you take whatever price the market is currently offering and executes immediately. A limit order has a particular price and executes whenever someone executes a market order against it. Limit orders add liquidity; market orders remove liquidity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_%28exchange%29

Can you please explain what the point of limit orders is? If it just buys/sells if the price hits certain points, you could achieve the same thing if you just set a sell order and a buy order. So what is the benefit of a "limit" order?

Hello everyone, Red here. So, everyone complains about liquidity of the CLAM market. I feel your pain. If all participants, particularly the large ones, were acting in line with rational self-interest, it would be less of a problem. My naive hope is that some brief education about asset portfolio management will help to correct this.

Rebalancing works like this. If you invest in CLAMS, you establish for yourself a basket of at least 2 assets. A simple basket might include a 50/50 balance of CLAM and BTC. Suppose your basket is worth 1 btc. At a price of .005, you would have 100 CLAM and 0.5 BTC.

If the CLAM price drops by 20% to .004, now you have .4 BTC worth of CLAM and .5 BTC worth of BTC. To rebalance, you would buy 12.5 clams at a cost of .05 BTC, so that your basket now contains 112.5 CLAM and .45 BTC, a total value of .9 BTC.

If the CLAM price goes back up to .005, now you have .5625 worth of CLAM and .45 BTC worth of BTC. To rebalance, you would sell 11.25 clams at a cost of .05625, so that your basket now contains 101.25 CLAM and .50625 BTC, a total value of 1.0125 BTC. The .0125 BTC is what is known as the rebalancing bonus.

You can put up limit orders for how many clams you would buy or sell if the price were to reach a certain point. This adds liquidity.

Rebalancing is a well established asset management technique (not Red's hair-brained scheme). All professional asset managers do this. You can read more about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebalancing_investments . The benefits of rebalancing include risk control and the rebalancing bonus. The rebalancing bonus is compounded by the market maker bonus when the market is illiquid, as is the case with the CLAM market.

If rebalancing still sounds like too much of a hassle to you, despite the selfish benefits, consider that you could be contributing to the liquidity of the market for everyone's benefit.

Not with CLAM (ENRG is the one that causes issues). It's reading from the HDD though I think, and my HDD has gotten extremely slow as of late. Read speed is only 3.8 MB/s. I really need to finish getting things cleaned up/backed up so I can reformat it and hopefully it'll help resolve some of this.

Each output gets one chance to try staking every 16 seconds.

So 60 outputs means the client will do 60 sha256 (?) hashes every 16 seconds. That shouldn't cause noticeable load at all.

Thanks for breaking this all down. This also helps explain why I have somewhat high CPU usage when a client gets to 60+ transactions as opposed to having just one (after I merge).

So really it's just a battle of finding that perfect balance between server efficiency and reward efficiency.

Age used to matter, but now only size matters. A single 400k output will stake 100k times faster than a 4 output, but then the whole thing will be idle for 8 hours while it matures.

The size is a tradeoff. Too small and it takes too long to check all your outputs for staking opportunities, and withdrawal transactions are too big. Too big and you waste a lot of time waiting for coins to mature.

Right now there are 356359.88675612 CLAM in the JD wallet trying to stake and 2171.26810000 waiting to mature.

That seems about right - we stake about 1000 times per day, the average output size is 5 becoming 6, and it takes about 8 hours to mature. So a third of 1000*6 should be maturing at any point in time. That's less than 1% of the balance. We could half the size of the average output and halve the inefficiency from 1% to 0.5% at the cost of doubling CPU usage and withdrawal tx size.

I wasn't even thinking about it being lottery-style instead of being based on age of coins (i.e., normal PoS). That makes a lot of sense, . But why 4 specifically and not 2, 3?

I split the whole wallet up into lots of 4 CLAM outputs for staking efficiency. The 4's stake to become 5, then 6 then 7, and when a 7 stakes I split it into two 4's.

(Outputs are unable to stake again for 510 blocks after they have staked, so you don't want them to be too big).

I think the people against the whole /offsite deal don't really comprehend the way that it works. They just see "they can be lying about how many coins they have!" without realizing that, for all intents and purposes, it has nothing to do with people claiming only what they have/can afford. To me, it's just like buying stocks on margin.

BTW, what is up with all the outputs (or inputs I guess) there that are for 6/7 CLAM? Stake is smaller than this and the original CLAM claims are less as well. Where do the perfectly round 6/7's come from?

The /offsite dilution certainly makes the big wins more tolerable. I can see losses like this, and still make a net profit from the staking rewards:



It's still sad to see the CLAMs disturbed from their staking wallet though. I guess they'll be bought by somebody and find their way back home soon enough.

Edit:

Thanks for clarifying this, . It makes a lot more sense now.

And I have no complaints about people keeping coins there that aren't invested. More for investors!

All things considered, I like how you've got everything set up (including /offsite), and this is coming from someone that was diluted as a result of it (as I just roll with the normal 1:1). With that said, I think it's a beneficial thing overall.

Yeah. All the coins in the wallet stake, but the staking rewards are only shared with the investors. If you deposit to play and leave the coins in your balance but not invested, you don't get a share of the staking rewards.

I was being asked how many coins that typically involves. I was saying "not many". We have 350k or so invested, and only 2k or so not invested. So it doesn't make a huge difference to how much you stake. It doesn't even make up for the 10% commission the site charges.

At the moment there are 1678.31637478 coins in user balances, not counting their "invested" coins. That's the lowest I've seen for some time.

I'd assume the 2037 figure is the total balance sitting idle in accounts.

Ahhh, got it. So by 2037 being an anomaly he meant normally there would be like 37 in user accounts (and that was the reference to the 2k that was probably supposed to be reinvested).

He is referring to balances not invested, just idle in users accounts.

How is the "bankroll" 350+ if there's only 2k invested? Even at 100x offsite for every person, that would only result in 202k or so.

First off, note that the word is "stake", as in "an interest or share in an undertaking or enterprise", not stack. By owning CLAM you have a stake or interest in the whole CLAM economy, such as it is, and get to earn rewards proportional to the size of your stake.


It's true, the whole wallet stakes, which includes onsite investments, balances, and any commission that has been charged by the site but not yet credited to an account. The 90% of each stake reward is shared between investors in proportion to the size of their onsite investment and the other 10% goes to the site as commission. The rewards don't count as profit for the purposes of calculating commission at the end of the week, since the 10% is taken off before the rewards are distributed.


I don't track it, but whenever I look it is between 2k and 4k, usually much closer to 2k. Right now it's 2037.72475057 CLAM. I expect somebody divested and forgot to reinvest their 2k. Players don't often leave coins in their balance - they either lose them, invest them, or withdraw them. There's nothing to be gained by leaving coins sitting idle in your balance when putting them in the bankroll makes them able to receive staking rewards.


I understand that some investors don't want the risk of bankrolling large bets, but there's nobody who ONLY wants to bankroll the large bets, or to bankroll more than their fair share of large bets.

It's clearly much better to bankroll a million small bets than one big bet worth the same amount. The small bets are the most desirable.

Allowing some investors to have an unfair share of the small bets necessarily means punishing the other investors with an unfair share of the bigger bets.