We are now seeking two types of individuals:
Investors - If you are looking for an opportunity to grow your capital in a diversified crypto-based investment portfolio, we would love to have you on board. Our project offers hands-off, passive income generation with a proven track record of 7-10% monthly returns.
Investor Finders - We are also looking to collaborate with individuals who have experience or interest in connecting investors with projects like ours. This is a commission-based role, where you would earn a percentage of the total investments brought into the project through your connections.
What we offer:
For Investors: A secure, passive investment opportunity with monthly returns.
For Investor Finders: A commission on investments you bring in, based on the size and success of the investment.
Proven returns: 7-10% per month with low risk.
No experience required for investor finders: We will provide all the details and support you need.
Commission-based structure: Earn as you help connect investors to our project.
If you’re interested in investing or helping us find investors, please reach out. We’re excited to grow and expand our network, and we look forward to connecting with you.
We will provide detailed reports of the past 12 months of activities, showing proofs that the system did work as intended.
Feel free to DM me for more details or to discuss the next steps.
Topic: Seeking Feedback on a Diversified Bitcoin Income System (Read 160 times)
We’ve been actively working on a similar model where we look at how Bitcoin, altcoins, and other crypto-based assets could function within a diversified treasury system. We are currently structuring our system so that a portion of participants' assets will be allocated to a treasury-like mechanism with a 20% contribution, while the remaining 80% can be strategically placed in various liquidity pools and platforms to support buy-side strength and further mitigate market fluctuations.
This setup allows the system to remain flexible while maintaining stability, leveraging dynamic rebalancing and continuous growth in Bitcoin accumulation. Your mention of needing to have a robust buy-side to keep spot market prices stable also resonates with our approach, especially as we explore mechanisms to ensure liquidity without overexposing participants to price swings.
We’re also factoring in stablecoin reserves and yield farming strategies as part of our overall risk management, to prevent the volatility associated with pure cryptocurrency holdings from unduly affecting the treasury. I believe this will complement the broader goal of maintaining asset stability while still offering competitive returns to participants.
In summary, your insights have reinforced the direction we’re taking and opened up new ways to think about optimizing treasury structures. We’re aiming for a balance where treasury-backed assets provide growth, while buy-sides ensure liquidity and buy-back support, much like the approach you've outlined.
This setup allows the system to remain flexible while maintaining stability, leveraging dynamic rebalancing and continuous growth in Bitcoin accumulation. Your mention of needing to have a robust buy-side to keep spot market prices stable also resonates with our approach, especially as we explore mechanisms to ensure liquidity without overexposing participants to price swings.
We’re also factoring in stablecoin reserves and yield farming strategies as part of our overall risk management, to prevent the volatility associated with pure cryptocurrency holdings from unduly affecting the treasury. I believe this will complement the broader goal of maintaining asset stability while still offering competitive returns to participants.
In summary, your insights have reinforced the direction we’re taking and opened up new ways to think about optimizing treasury structures. We’re aiming for a balance where treasury-backed assets provide growth, while buy-sides ensure liquidity and buy-back support, much like the approach you've outlined.
In the Galactic Milieu we have developed a "perishable as in fiat" commodity known as DEUterium.
If you compare its calculated prices across time as expressed in the various assets that are shown it should be clear that it, like fiat, does lose value over time, although it might not be immediately obvious that it loses value at rates that closely mimic fiat; the more volatile any particular fiat has been as compared to other fiats can also of course obscure that fact, as can not having also at your fingertips a table similarly displaying the values of various other assets as of the same timestamps (being the timestamps of the Latest Rates include-file instances from which all the tables and plots linked from the Digitalis Assets statistics main page derive).
For example if you are familiar with the price history of bitcoin as expressed in some fiat or other, having at your fingertips the Asset values expressed in BiTCoins (BTC) table should be helpful.
Part of the usefulness of the DEUterium prices table lies in precisely the fact that by perishing "just like fiat does" it lets one see at a glance whether in fact during the reign of a given release of the Latest Rates include-file all the shown assets are in fact still heading upwards in calculated value as compared to earlier rows of the table.
This helps the civilisations and other entities whose currencies appear as the columns of the table decide whether a time has come when adding more reserve assets to their "official treasury" seems called for.
By choosing growth assets for one's "treasury" it is relatively easy to sit back confidently, knowing the total value of one's treasury is growing, even though of course the fact that DEUterium is by intent and design losing value just like fiat; just bear in mind that the shown assets are not "really" growing in value as fast as they are gaining over DEUterium since part of their apparent climb is actually DEUterium's decline.
I am not sure whether it is clear to you that the civilisations and other entities whose "currencies" the various assets are put only a portion of their actual holdings into their "official treasuries", much like when tokenising actual blockchain coins (hard currencies, so to speak) into the tokens used in the treasuries I only tokenise half the actual coins I have so that the other half can be used to "redeem" the tokens while leaving the "redeemed" tokens still backed one for one by the coins they represent.
The entities also of course have various "slush funds", starting of course with the one their own currency is held in once it is minted or tokenised but including all the various "buy sides" they build for it on all the various trading venues they choose to support it on.
Typically also the entities involved own in-game assets, whether planets or civilisation-controlled land or armies, navies, deathstars or whatever, which also do not count toward the "official treasury" although of course skillful playing or actually in many cases even just pedestrian playing using such assets can ultimately result in obtaining of various reserve assets through various means.
So just putting 20% of holdings into a treasury as you suggest is perfectly feasible but obviously the resulting calculated value would thus be presumably only 20% of the value that would be calculated had 100% of the holdings been put into the treasury.
If it turns out though that it actually ends up requiring 80% of an asset's holdings of other assets to be out on trading venues in the form of buy offers just to keep the spot market prices up near the calculated value 20% might well turn out to be a sensible percentage to put into the treasury.
I think most of the Milieu's treasury-based assets only initially put half their total holdings into their treasury, leaving only half to use to buy back their coins or tokens with.
-MarkM-
If you compare its calculated prices across time as expressed in the various assets that are shown it should be clear that it, like fiat, does lose value over time, although it might not be immediately obvious that it loses value at rates that closely mimic fiat; the more volatile any particular fiat has been as compared to other fiats can also of course obscure that fact, as can not having also at your fingertips a table similarly displaying the values of various other assets as of the same timestamps (being the timestamps of the Latest Rates include-file instances from which all the tables and plots linked from the Digitalis Assets statistics main page derive).
For example if you are familiar with the price history of bitcoin as expressed in some fiat or other, having at your fingertips the Asset values expressed in BiTCoins (BTC) table should be helpful.
Part of the usefulness of the DEUterium prices table lies in precisely the fact that by perishing "just like fiat does" it lets one see at a glance whether in fact during the reign of a given release of the Latest Rates include-file all the shown assets are in fact still heading upwards in calculated value as compared to earlier rows of the table.
This helps the civilisations and other entities whose currencies appear as the columns of the table decide whether a time has come when adding more reserve assets to their "official treasury" seems called for.
By choosing growth assets for one's "treasury" it is relatively easy to sit back confidently, knowing the total value of one's treasury is growing, even though of course the fact that DEUterium is by intent and design losing value just like fiat; just bear in mind that the shown assets are not "really" growing in value as fast as they are gaining over DEUterium since part of their apparent climb is actually DEUterium's decline.
I am not sure whether it is clear to you that the civilisations and other entities whose "currencies" the various assets are put only a portion of their actual holdings into their "official treasuries", much like when tokenising actual blockchain coins (hard currencies, so to speak) into the tokens used in the treasuries I only tokenise half the actual coins I have so that the other half can be used to "redeem" the tokens while leaving the "redeemed" tokens still backed one for one by the coins they represent.
The entities also of course have various "slush funds", starting of course with the one their own currency is held in once it is minted or tokenised but including all the various "buy sides" they build for it on all the various trading venues they choose to support it on.
Typically also the entities involved own in-game assets, whether planets or civilisation-controlled land or armies, navies, deathstars or whatever, which also do not count toward the "official treasury" although of course skillful playing or actually in many cases even just pedestrian playing using such assets can ultimately result in obtaining of various reserve assets through various means.
So just putting 20% of holdings into a treasury as you suggest is perfectly feasible but obviously the resulting calculated value would thus be presumably only 20% of the value that would be calculated had 100% of the holdings been put into the treasury.
If it turns out though that it actually ends up requiring 80% of an asset's holdings of other assets to be out on trading venues in the form of buy offers just to keep the spot market prices up near the calculated value 20% might well turn out to be a sensible percentage to put into the treasury.
I think most of the Milieu's treasury-based assets only initially put half their total holdings into their treasury, leaving only half to use to buy back their coins or tokens with.
-MarkM-
Thank you for this great discussion!
It has led me to think, (maybe even to realise, if my thinking is correct) that a lot of what people "need" fiat for is basically commodities.
Thus possibly my long ago ideas about how things like milk and eggs and butter and sugar and so on would probably be a whole lot cheaper if lots of folk bought subscriptions, so the shops would have a more certain estimate of how much of each thing they need to have in stock by what date and conglomerates or chains of shops could use commodities markets and future-commodities markets more accurately and so on.
Admittedly milk and eggs and butter are, like fiat, perishables in the sense that like fiat they can be expected somewhat reliably to lose value over time unless sufficient preservative techniques like fridges or interest-bearing savings accounts (and at some inflation rates not even that latter) are used to attempt to at least slow down the rate at which they "perish", but as they lack the flexibility of fiat (vast libraries full of recipes using them notwithstanding) they can possibly be provided cheaper than fiat can be provided.
Part of my reason for suspecting that last part is that for centuries providers of milk eggs butter and such have not only earned themselves profits as measured in fiat but have in fact as far as I am aware everywhere world-wide over those centuries earned more and more and more fiat per unit of milk eggs butter etc.
Thus maybe buying up actual farms and such, with a sufficiently long-term view to just keep on producing such commodies to sell for a fixed amount of bitcoin per unit of each commodity (at least to members; obviously non-members will be prone to buying elsewhere using fiat during periods when fiat is in a bubble relative to bitcoin) knowing that over time bitcoin will recover from any apparent dips in its value-in-fiat, could be a reasonable concept to look into. Subscription based sales would likely be important in such ideas so that even if members are tempted to buy their groceries elsewhere using fiat who cares, they already paid for what the bitcoin-based producer was producing for them so if they don't show up to pick it up that is okay, all the more to sell to other members who randomly happen to want more than they subscribed to.
I know, this is very nebulous and vague idea so far but ultimately boils down to the same old same old more vendors accepting bitcoin would be helpful; it is just that it addresses the common barrier wannabe-such-vendors run into of where though are they to obtain wholesale using bitcoins the things they want to retail...
-MarkM-
EDIT: I suspect that the above might make more sense if one read fixed amount of bitcoin as fixed value (value in eggs milk butter etc) of bitcoin...
EDIT2: Maybe just making sure bitcoin doesn't dip has to be the real solution; its going up does not seem to present as much problem as allowing it to dip does.
It has led me to think, (maybe even to realise, if my thinking is correct) that a lot of what people "need" fiat for is basically commodities.
Thus possibly my long ago ideas about how things like milk and eggs and butter and sugar and so on would probably be a whole lot cheaper if lots of folk bought subscriptions, so the shops would have a more certain estimate of how much of each thing they need to have in stock by what date and conglomerates or chains of shops could use commodities markets and future-commodities markets more accurately and so on.
Admittedly milk and eggs and butter are, like fiat, perishables in the sense that like fiat they can be expected somewhat reliably to lose value over time unless sufficient preservative techniques like fridges or interest-bearing savings accounts (and at some inflation rates not even that latter) are used to attempt to at least slow down the rate at which they "perish", but as they lack the flexibility of fiat (vast libraries full of recipes using them notwithstanding) they can possibly be provided cheaper than fiat can be provided.
Part of my reason for suspecting that last part is that for centuries providers of milk eggs butter and such have not only earned themselves profits as measured in fiat but have in fact as far as I am aware everywhere world-wide over those centuries earned more and more and more fiat per unit of milk eggs butter etc.
Thus maybe buying up actual farms and such, with a sufficiently long-term view to just keep on producing such commodies to sell for a fixed amount of bitcoin per unit of each commodity (at least to members; obviously non-members will be prone to buying elsewhere using fiat during periods when fiat is in a bubble relative to bitcoin) knowing that over time bitcoin will recover from any apparent dips in its value-in-fiat, could be a reasonable concept to look into. Subscription based sales would likely be important in such ideas so that even if members are tempted to buy their groceries elsewhere using fiat who cares, they already paid for what the bitcoin-based producer was producing for them so if they don't show up to pick it up that is okay, all the more to sell to other members who randomly happen to want more than they subscribed to.
I know, this is very nebulous and vague idea so far but ultimately boils down to the same old same old more vendors accepting bitcoin would be helpful; it is just that it addresses the common barrier wannabe-such-vendors run into of where though are they to obtain wholesale using bitcoins the things they want to retail...
-MarkM-
EDIT: I suspect that the above might make more sense if one read fixed amount of bitcoin as fixed value (value in eggs milk butter etc) of bitcoin...
EDIT2: Maybe just making sure bitcoin doesn't dip has to be the real solution; its going up does not seem to present as much problem as allowing it to dip does.
Thanks again for the thought-provoking insights! I really appreciate how you’ve expanded on the concept of integrating commodities and how the idea of subscription-based models could align with the core of our Bitcoin income system.
You’re absolutely right in pointing out that much of the need for fiat comes from consumables, like milk and eggs. This perspective got me thinking about a similar model in our system. If we can think of Bitcoin as a form of long-term store of value, and the “commodities” of our project as the products generated from the system, there may indeed be ways to tie the value of returns to something more concrete that can withstand volatility. A more long-term view could be developed where participants, similar to your idea, “subscribe” to a specific quantity of Bitcoin-based returns, knowing they can access them at a fixed rate.
The thought of providing commodities (or returns) pegged to Bitcoin is intriguing, especially in the context of long-term investments. I think there’s merit in looking deeper into how to create a system where people are willing to accept Bitcoin-based payment for goods, even if fiat seems more attractive in the short term due to temporary market fluctuations. This is something I want to explore further, especially how we could integrate more vendors accepting Bitcoin.
As for the concerns regarding volatility in the initial post, your comment helped me think through this more carefully. The emphasis will definitely be on reducing the exposure to Bitcoin price dips by ensuring that hedging and diversification, as we mentioned, offer protection in case of downturns. I’ll be refining the communication around this to make it clear that we are not just relying on Bitcoin’s price increases but actively managing the risk of declines.
Your idea about strengthening the buy-side and considering futures or subscription-based strategies for commodities in Bitcoin are definitely areas I’ll explore. I think it’s an innovative way to tie the system back to more tangible assets, something I hadn’t fully considered.
Overall, your feedback is invaluable in refining the project’s approach.
Thanks again, and looking forward to your thoughts!
Thank you for this great discussion!
It has led me to think, (maybe even to realise, if my thinking is correct) that a lot of what people "need" fiat for is basically commodities.
Thus possibly my long ago ideas about how things like milk and eggs and butter and sugar and so on would probably be a whole lot cheaper if lots of folk bought subscriptions, so the shops would have a more certain estimate of how much of each thing they need to have in stock by what date and conglomerates or chains of shops could use commodities markets and future-commodities markets more accurately and so on.
Admittedly milk and eggs and butter are, like fiat, perishables in the sense that like fiat they can be expected somewhat reliably to lose value over time unless sufficient preservative techniques like fridges or interest-bearing savings accounts (and at some inflation rates not even that latter) are used to attempt to at least slow down the rate at which they "perish", but as they lack the flexibility of fiat (vast libraries full of recipes using them notwithstanding) they can possibly be provided cheaper than fiat can be provided.
Part of my reason for suspecting that last part is that for centuries providers of milk eggs butter and such have not only earned themselves profits as measured in fiat but have in fact as far as I am aware everywhere world-wide over those centuries earned more and more and more fiat per unit of milk eggs butter etc.
Thus maybe buying up actual farms and such, with a sufficiently long-term view to just keep on producing such commodies to sell for a fixed amount of bitcoin per unit of each commodity (at least to members; obviously non-members will be prone to buying elsewhere using fiat during periods when fiat is in a bubble relative to bitcoin) knowing that over time bitcoin will recover from any apparent dips in its value-in-fiat, could be a reasonable concept to look into. Subscription based sales would likely be important in such ideas so that even if members are tempted to buy their groceries elsewhere using fiat who cares, they already paid for what the bitcoin-based producer was producing for them so if they don't show up to pick it up that is okay, all the more to sell to other members who randomly happen to want more than they subscribed to.
I know, this is very nebulous and vague idea so far but ultimately boils down to the same old same old more vendors accepting bitcoin would be helpful; it is just that it addresses the common barrier wannabe-such-vendors run into of where though are they to obtain wholesale using bitcoins the things they want to retail...
-MarkM-
EDIT: I suspect that the above might make more sense if one read fixed amount of bitcoin as fixed value (value in eggs milk butter etc) of bitcoin...
EDIT2: Maybe just making sure bitcoin doesn't dip has to be the real solution; its going up does not seem to present as much problem as allowing it to dip does.
It has led me to think, (maybe even to realise, if my thinking is correct) that a lot of what people "need" fiat for is basically commodities.
Thus possibly my long ago ideas about how things like milk and eggs and butter and sugar and so on would probably be a whole lot cheaper if lots of folk bought subscriptions, so the shops would have a more certain estimate of how much of each thing they need to have in stock by what date and conglomerates or chains of shops could use commodities markets and future-commodities markets more accurately and so on.
Admittedly milk and eggs and butter are, like fiat, perishables in the sense that like fiat they can be expected somewhat reliably to lose value over time unless sufficient preservative techniques like fridges or interest-bearing savings accounts (and at some inflation rates not even that latter) are used to attempt to at least slow down the rate at which they "perish", but as they lack the flexibility of fiat (vast libraries full of recipes using them notwithstanding) they can possibly be provided cheaper than fiat can be provided.
Part of my reason for suspecting that last part is that for centuries providers of milk eggs butter and such have not only earned themselves profits as measured in fiat but have in fact as far as I am aware everywhere world-wide over those centuries earned more and more and more fiat per unit of milk eggs butter etc.
Thus maybe buying up actual farms and such, with a sufficiently long-term view to just keep on producing such commodies to sell for a fixed amount of bitcoin per unit of each commodity (at least to members; obviously non-members will be prone to buying elsewhere using fiat during periods when fiat is in a bubble relative to bitcoin) knowing that over time bitcoin will recover from any apparent dips in its value-in-fiat, could be a reasonable concept to look into. Subscription based sales would likely be important in such ideas so that even if members are tempted to buy their groceries elsewhere using fiat who cares, they already paid for what the bitcoin-based producer was producing for them so if they don't show up to pick it up that is okay, all the more to sell to other members who randomly happen to want more than they subscribed to.
I know, this is very nebulous and vague idea so far but ultimately boils down to the same old same old more vendors accepting bitcoin would be helpful; it is just that it addresses the common barrier wannabe-such-vendors run into of where though are they to obtain wholesale using bitcoins the things they want to retail...
-MarkM-
EDIT: I suspect that the above might make more sense if one read fixed amount of bitcoin as fixed value (value in eggs milk butter etc) of bitcoin...
EDIT2: Maybe just making sure bitcoin doesn't dip has to be the real solution; its going up does not seem to present as much problem as allowing it to dip does.
I’d love to hear more about how you envision a treasury system being integrated into projects like ours.
Well right off the bat I'd think simply adding some of the treasury-based assets to your system's portfolio(s) a somewhat obvious toe-dipping into the idea.
-MarkM-
Thank you for your insightful feedback! I’ve taken your points on volatility, liquidity, and market inefficiencies into account, and I’m working on a few key changes to enhance our system. Here's how I plan to address the concerns you raised:
Treasury-Based Approach:
I’m looking into introducing a treasury-like mechanism where a portion of the system's assets (around 20%) will be allocated to stablecoins and low-risk investments. This would act as a buffer during market downturns, reducing volatility and providing a steady stream of liquidity.
Hedging Strategies:
I’m exploring the use of hedging strategies, such as put options or short positions on Bitcoin, to protect the system against large price drops. This would help to ensure the stability of the system, even when the market is experiencing major downturns.
Automated Tools and Dynamic Rebalancing:
I’m in the process of integrating automated tools that can dynamically rebalance portfolios based on market conditions. This would help in optimizing returns and adjusting the portfolios in real-time to mitigate any significant losses during volatile periods.
Liquidity and Buy-Sides:
I’m also focusing on strengthening the liquidity and buy-side of the system by reinvesting returns into altcoins and staking platforms. This will help maintain a deep and reliable buy-side while also ensuring we can scale effectively.
Fiat Integration:
While the primary focus will remain on Bitcoin accumulation, I’m considering your suggestion regarding futures to stabilize fiat outputs. This would offer participants the option to convert their returns into fiat if needed while maintaining the system's overall value.
These are plans that I am actively working on to improve the system, and your suggestions have been incredibly helpful in shaping these ideas. I’d love to hear your thoughts on these adjustments and any other suggestions you might have. Thanks!
I’d love to hear more about how you envision a treasury system being integrated into projects like ours.
Well right off the bat I'd think simply adding some of the treasury-based assets to your system's portfolio(s) a somewhat obvious toe-dipping into the idea.
-MarkM-
On-paper dips are avoided in the Galactic Milieu by its "treasuries" system, which it was initially forced into developing simply by the stunning inefficiency of spot markets.
(I earlier posted an example in fact at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64947862)
The "treasuries" allow the game to compute for each "treasury based" asset a value per unit simply by dividing the total value of its "treasury" by the number of units in existence.
Spot markets, though, are crazy-inefficient in addition to being from, time to time, sometimes most of the time even, "just plain crazy".
Right now the game is trying to get its assets up and running on the Stellar platform, and in that process it has become painfully clear how essential it is to build strong deep buy-sides for every asset.
Back in the days when we were using the Open Transactions platform civilisations had scripts set up that used those "Latest Rates" to set up buy offers offering to buy their own currency with other currencies at the computed rates.
But problems still arise any time some buy-side or other happens to be something one does not yet have much or any of on hand.
The staggering inefficiency of spot markets so far has led to it seemingly being necessary for each individual trading-pair on each extant venue to build its own buy-side using only its own proceeds from right there; since evidently speculative arbitrageurs are few and far between in the most-accessible venues.
This experience is why I have come to have such a focus lately on the importance of building for each and every asset as strong and deep and wide a buy-side as possible.
If fiat prices of the assets are also to be of any concern maybe dollar futures could be used to buy up vast piles of dirt cheap future dollars which when they are delivered can be used to shore up the dollar side of any asset vs dollars pairs that are found to be needed?
-MarkM-
Your points about the inefficiencies of spot markets and the importance of building strong buy-sides are well-taken. I’d like to address some of the concerns you’ve raised and share how our project aligns with—or could adapt to—your suggestions.
Spot Market Dependency:
While our system does interact with spot markets, we mitigate inefficiencies through diversification. By incorporating altcoins, staking, and yield farming, we reduce reliance on any single market or asset, creating a more balanced income stream.
Treasury Concept:
Your treasury-based system is intriguing. While our project doesn’t currently implement a similar structure, we do maintain stablecoin reserves and emergency funds to act as buffers during market downturns. Expanding this concept into a treasury-like mechanism could further enhance stability—something I’ll explore further.
Building Deep Buy-Sides:
We share your focus on liquidity and stability. Our system actively reinvests a portion of generated returns into strengthening its core assets, akin to building a buy-side. Additionally, automated tools dynamically rebalance portfolios to respond to liquidity demands.
Fiat Integration:
I appreciate your insights on fiat. Our system offers fiat-based outputs as an optional flexibility for participants, but our primary focus remains on Bitcoin accumulation. Your suggestion of leveraging dollar futures to bolster fiat-based returns is an excellent idea and worth considering.
I’d love to hear more about how you envision a treasury system being integrated into projects like ours.
On-paper dips are avoided in the Galactic Milieu by its "treasuries" system, which it was initially forced into developing simply by the stunning inefficiency of spot markets.
(I earlier posted an example in fact at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64947862)
The "treasuries" allow the game to compute for each "treasury based" asset a value per unit simply by dividing the total value of its "treasury" by the number of units in existence.
Spot markets, though, are crazy-inefficient in addition to being from time to time, sometimes most of the time even, "just plain crazy".
Right now the game is trying to get its assets up and running on the Stellar platform, and in that process it has become painfully clear how essential it is to build strong deep buy-sides for every asset.
Back in the days when we were using the Open Transactions platform civilisations had scripts set up that used those "Latest Rates" to set up buy offers offering to buy their own currency with other currencies at the computed rates.
But problems still arise any time some buy-side or other happens to be something one does not yet have much or any of on hand.
The staggering inefficiency of spot markets so far has led to it seemingly being necessary for each individual trading-pair on each extant venue to build its own buy-side using only its own proceeds from right there; since evidently speculative arbitrageurs are few and far between in the most-accessible venues.
This experience is why I have come to have such a focus lately on the importance of building for each and every asset as strong and deep and wide a buy-side as possible.
If fiat prices of the assets are also to be of any concern maybe dollar futures could be used to buy up vast piles of dirt cheap future dollars which when they are delivered can be used to shore up the dollar side of any asset vs dollars pairs that are found to be needed?
-MarkM-
(I earlier posted an example in fact at https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.64947862)
The "treasuries" allow the game to compute for each "treasury based" asset a value per unit simply by dividing the total value of its "treasury" by the number of units in existence.
Spot markets, though, are crazy-inefficient in addition to being from time to time, sometimes most of the time even, "just plain crazy".
Right now the game is trying to get its assets up and running on the Stellar platform, and in that process it has become painfully clear how essential it is to build strong deep buy-sides for every asset.
Back in the days when we were using the Open Transactions platform civilisations had scripts set up that used those "Latest Rates" to set up buy offers offering to buy their own currency with other currencies at the computed rates.
But problems still arise any time some buy-side or other happens to be something one does not yet have much or any of on hand.
The staggering inefficiency of spot markets so far has led to it seemingly being necessary for each individual trading-pair on each extant venue to build its own buy-side using only its own proceeds from right there; since evidently speculative arbitrageurs are few and far between in the most-accessible venues.
This experience is why I have come to have such a focus lately on the importance of building for each and every asset as strong and deep and wide a buy-side as possible.
If fiat prices of the assets are also to be of any concern maybe dollar futures could be used to buy up vast piles of dirt cheap future dollars which when they are delivered can be used to shore up the dollar side of any asset vs dollars pairs that are found to be needed?
-MarkM-
Most of that sounds like what each and every responsible "civilisation" in the Galactic Milieu that has a currency of its own is trying to do with its own currency.
Also a lot of it seems like something that can be mostly-accomplished by as simple a mechanism as always putting back onto the buy-side all the proceeds of the sell-side of a trading pair and the proceeds of the buy-side being put back into the sell side, since due to the units (tokens, coins, shares or whatever one labels them) being re-sold over and over and over again the total buy-side will probably have grow higher and higher in price over time simply in order to not be trying to buy more units than were minted.
If bitcoin miners had from the outset always put back onto the buy-side of some BTC/whatever market somewhere, even minus a small re-stocking fee, their entire proceeds from bitcoin sales bitcoin probably would already have a rock-solid floor that constantly rises even though even rock does at some venues sometimes crumble or wear away a little or even crack or crumble.
It actually seems likely that all the other components of your system ought need only to constantly strengthen the buy-side of such a core unit to accomplish your goal.
In fact it even seems feasible that simply using bitcoin itself as that core unit could work, everything else simply constantly buying bitcoin anywhere it can as cheaply as it can using anything anyone is willing to sell bitcoin for...
-MarkM-
EDIT: It seems the huge edit I was responding to has been deleted from the post it was an edit to.
Also a lot of it seems like something that can be mostly-accomplished by as simple a mechanism as always putting back onto the buy-side all the proceeds of the sell-side of a trading pair and the proceeds of the buy-side being put back into the sell side, since due to the units (tokens, coins, shares or whatever one labels them) being re-sold over and over and over again the total buy-side will probably have grow higher and higher in price over time simply in order to not be trying to buy more units than were minted.
If bitcoin miners had from the outset always put back onto the buy-side of some BTC/whatever market somewhere, even minus a small re-stocking fee, their entire proceeds from bitcoin sales bitcoin probably would already have a rock-solid floor that constantly rises even though even rock does at some venues sometimes crumble or wear away a little or even crack or crumble.
It actually seems likely that all the other components of your system ought need only to constantly strengthen the buy-side of such a core unit to accomplish your goal.
In fact it even seems feasible that simply using bitcoin itself as that core unit could work, everything else simply constantly buying bitcoin anywhere it can as cheaply as it can using anything anyone is willing to sell bitcoin for...
-MarkM-
EDIT: It seems the huge edit I was responding to has been deleted from the post it was an edit to.
You’re absolutely right that consistently reinvesting proceeds into the buy-side could create a natural price floor and stabilize growth. In fact, this concept aligns closely with one of the underlying principles of our system. By channeling a portion of the returns from staking, yield farming, and other instruments into Bitcoin buy-side support, we aim to ensure consistent demand for BTC while benefiting participants with stable growth.
Where our system expands on this idea is through diversification. While Bitcoin serves as the core unit, we incorporate other crypto assets and financial instruments to manage volatility and capture opportunities across different market conditions. This diversification strengthens the system’s overall resilience, ensuring that it can sustain stable returns even during downturns in any single market or asset class.
Your suggestion about using Bitcoin itself as the sole core unit is an interesting one. While we currently prioritize BTC for its robustness and long-term potential, we also recognize that participants have different needs—some prefer accumulating BTC, while others may require liquidity in fiat or other assets. By offering an optional “output converter,” we cater to both preferences without compromising the system’s core integrity.
PS: The edit was kinda been added to the main post for everyone to see.
Most of that sounds like what each and every responsible "civilisation" in the Galactic Milieu that has a currency of its own is trying to do with its own currency.
Also a lot of it seems like something that can be mostly-accomplished by as simple a mechanism as always putting back onto the buy-side all the proceeds of the sell-side of a trading pair and the proceeds of the buy-side being put back into the sell side, since due to the units (tokens, coins, shares or whatever one labels them) being re-sold over and over and over again the total buy-side will probably have to grow higher and higher in price over time simply in order to not be trying to buy more units than were minted.
If bitcoin miners had from the outset always put back onto the buy-side of some BTC/whatever market somewhere, even minus a small re-stocking fee, their entire proceeds from bitcoin sales bitcoin probably would already have a rock-solid floor that constantly rises even though even rock does at some venues sometimes crumble or wear away a little or even crack or crumble.
It actually seems likely that all the other components of your system ought need only to constantly strengthen the buy-side of such a core unit to accomplish your goal.
In fact it even seems feasible that simply using bitcoin itself as that core unit could work, everything else simply constantly buying bitcoin anywhere it can as cheaply as it can using anything anyone is willing to sell bitcoin for...
-MarkM-
EDIT: It seems the huge edit I was responding to has been deleted from the post it was an edit to.
Also a lot of it seems like something that can be mostly-accomplished by as simple a mechanism as always putting back onto the buy-side all the proceeds of the sell-side of a trading pair and the proceeds of the buy-side being put back into the sell side, since due to the units (tokens, coins, shares or whatever one labels them) being re-sold over and over and over again the total buy-side will probably have to grow higher and higher in price over time simply in order to not be trying to buy more units than were minted.
If bitcoin miners had from the outset always put back onto the buy-side of some BTC/whatever market somewhere, even minus a small re-stocking fee, their entire proceeds from bitcoin sales bitcoin probably would already have a rock-solid floor that constantly rises even though even rock does at some venues sometimes crumble or wear away a little or even crack or crumble.
It actually seems likely that all the other components of your system ought need only to constantly strengthen the buy-side of such a core unit to accomplish your goal.
In fact it even seems feasible that simply using bitcoin itself as that core unit could work, everything else simply constantly buying bitcoin anywhere it can as cheaply as it can using anything anyone is willing to sell bitcoin for...
-MarkM-
EDIT: It seems the huge edit I was responding to has been deleted from the post it was an edit to.
That’s precisely why the system’s core philosophy prioritizes Bitcoin and other assets designed to retain or appreciate in value over time.
The inclusion of fiat is less about relying on it as a foundational component and more about offering participants flexibility for their individual financial goals. Think of it as an optional “output converter” for those who may need liquidity in traditional currencies, similar to the retirement income products you mentioned.
That said, the primary engine of our model is entirely built around Bitcoin and crypto-based tools that align with value preservation and growth. We ensure that fiat integration doesn’t interfere with the system’s core purpose—it’s simply an optional add-on for participants who require it. I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to further refine this balance or explore alternatives to enhance value preservation.
To clarify, the goal is indeed to create a system that increases the amount of Bitcoin held by participants. The project focuses on leveraging a combination of automated tools and diversified crypto assets to generate stable, consistent returns in BTC, while offering flexibility for those who may prioritize fiat-based outputs.
Regarding your question about the team, I currently lead the project and handle the majority of its development, but there is a small group of collaborators who assist with specific components, such as regulatory insights and operational scalability. This hybrid approach ensures that the system benefits from diverse expertise while maintaining a unified vision.
EDIT:
Thanks, for your valuable feedback! It’s incredibly motivating to see such interest in the project, even if from just two people for now.
I took the opportunity to re-write the first message with more effort.
The inclusion of fiat is less about relying on it as a foundational component and more about offering participants flexibility for their individual financial goals. Think of it as an optional “output converter” for those who may need liquidity in traditional currencies, similar to the retirement income products you mentioned.
That said, the primary engine of our model is entirely built around Bitcoin and crypto-based tools that align with value preservation and growth. We ensure that fiat integration doesn’t interfere with the system’s core purpose—it’s simply an optional add-on for participants who require it. I’d love to hear your thoughts on how to further refine this balance or explore alternatives to enhance value preservation.
To clarify, the goal is indeed to create a system that increases the amount of Bitcoin held by participants. The project focuses on leveraging a combination of automated tools and diversified crypto assets to generate stable, consistent returns in BTC, while offering flexibility for those who may prioritize fiat-based outputs.
Regarding your question about the team, I currently lead the project and handle the majority of its development, but there is a small group of collaborators who assist with specific components, such as regulatory insights and operational scalability. This hybrid approach ensures that the system benefits from diverse expertise while maintaining a unified vision.
EDIT:
Thanks, for your valuable feedback! It’s incredibly motivating to see such interest in the project, even if from just two people for now.
I took the opportunity to re-write the first message with more effort.
Re dodimatto's "response to markm":
Makes sense.
I failed though to mention that a big part of my aversion to including fiat is simply that fiat is designed and intended to lose value, which seems a silly kind of component to use in constructing a circuit or engine or whatever whose purpose is to at minimum preserve value and ideally to enhance or increase value.
Like deliberately choosing shoddy components to build with, basically.
In essence "why is is necessary to include a component designed and intended to lose value, surely whatever function it is supposedly meant to perform in the engine ought to be feasible using a component that at least tries to preserve or increase value" seems to be my fundamental question underlying my leeriness of using fiat in it.
Thus my figuring any conversion to fiat can be an after the fact distinct conversion-engine, maybe akin to "guaranteed income" products some folks purchase for retirement etc.
-MarkM-
Makes sense.
I failed though to mention that a big part of my aversion to including fiat is simply that fiat is designed and intended to lose value, which seems a silly kind of component to use in constructing a circuit or engine or whatever whose purpose is to at minimum preserve value and ideally to enhance or increase value.
Like deliberately choosing shoddy components to build with, basically.
In essence "why is is necessary to include a component designed and intended to lose value, surely whatever function it is supposedly meant to perform in the engine ought to be feasible using a component that at least tries to preserve or increase value" seems to be my fundamental question underlying my leeriness of using fiat in it.
Thus my figuring any conversion to fiat can be an after the fact distinct conversion-engine, maybe akin to "guaranteed income" products some folks purchase for retirement etc.
-MarkM-
Response to Vod:
I would like to edit my initial reply to "So you want to build a system that buys/sells bitcoin to maximize profits?"
I didn't mean to bring up USD as a distraction. You want to build a bot that increases the amount of bitcoin you hold, right?
You may find interest here in such a project. Can you identify what part you play? Your replies bounce between "I/My" and "We/Our". Are you a sole developer, or do you have a team?
Response to Vod:
Converting to USD or another fiat currency can be part of the process for some participants, depending on their personal financial goals. However, the core philosophy of this system is flexibility. For those who prefer to focus on Bitcoin accumulation and avoid the volatility associated with fiat conversions, we ensure that their earnings remain in Satoshis.
That said, we also recognize the need for liquidity in traditional currencies, which is why the system is designed to offer both options. Our goal is to provide a dual-path model:
For Bitcoin enthusiasts: Stable BTC income to grow their holdings.
For those prioritizing fiat stability: A mechanism that integrates tools to smooth out fluctuations and provide consistent fiat-equivalent returns.
Response to markm:
You make a great point about bias when fiat comes into play. Our system does, in essence, work like a "capacitor," as you described, buffering against market fluctuations. We leverage tools like staking, yield farming, and carefully chosen altcoins to create this stability. Think of it as a circuit where the inflows (BTC earnings) are managed to deliver steady, reliable outputs (BTC or fiat).
To your analogy, we’ve built the system to adapt to different "voltage ranges" in the market, handling regular fluctuations with ease while having safeguards to manage black swan events.
Converting to USD or another fiat currency can be part of the process for some participants, depending on their personal financial goals. However, the core philosophy of this system is flexibility. For those who prefer to focus on Bitcoin accumulation and avoid the volatility associated with fiat conversions, we ensure that their earnings remain in Satoshis.
That said, we also recognize the need for liquidity in traditional currencies, which is why the system is designed to offer both options. Our goal is to provide a dual-path model:
For Bitcoin enthusiasts: Stable BTC income to grow their holdings.
For those prioritizing fiat stability: A mechanism that integrates tools to smooth out fluctuations and provide consistent fiat-equivalent returns.
Response to markm:
You make a great point about bias when fiat comes into play. Our system does, in essence, work like a "capacitor," as you described, buffering against market fluctuations. We leverage tools like staking, yield farming, and carefully chosen altcoins to create this stability. Think of it as a circuit where the inflows (BTC earnings) are managed to deliver steady, reliable outputs (BTC or fiat).
To your analogy, we’ve built the system to adapt to different "voltage ranges" in the market, handling regular fluctuations with ease while having safeguards to manage black swan events.
So you want to build a system that buys/sells bitcoin to maximize USD profits?
Where do you get that idea, I didn't see anything about any fiat whatsoever in the original post, let alone specifically USD.
Wouldn't bitcoin profits be sufficient?
A stable level of satoshis coming in would be nice enough wouldn't it, why bring up fiat at all?
-MarkM-
Sorry, I was thinking of the end game. You eventually need to convert to USD or some other currency, right?
My worry when fiat comes into it is bias.
To my mind it seems reasonable that if one were to simply achieve consistent bitcoin profits, any kind of capacitor-type mechanism could be bolted on to the outside of it to dole it out as a consistent stream of anything else, subject to the degree of price fluctuation the capacitor-thingie has the capacity to smooth.
I have yet to satisfactorily map electrical circuit components and volts amps watts to monetary circuits but surely there is in finance something that can do the kind of things transformers and even frequency-converters do, right?
Turning for example a once daily influx of bitcoin into a monthly output of fiat, that kind of thing.
There is probably some voltage or amperage range for any given converter of X volts at Y amps at Z cycles per second into A volts at B amps at C cycles per second, so maybe large enough fluctuations of earnings or of conversion rates between currencies would be too much for a given implementation but a stronger higher-range similar contraption could be built with higher capacity to accomodate blacker swans as it were.
-MarkM-
So you want to build a system that buys/sells bitcoin to maximize USD profits?
While maximizing USD profits is a common approach, my project’s primary focus is on leveraging Bitcoin and related assets to create diversified, stable income streams. The goal is to ensure steady returns for participants, whether they prefer accumulation in Bitcoin (Satoshis) or in fiat equivalent terms.
Rather than a pure buy/sell trading strategy, the system integrates various methods like staking, altcoin diversification, and automated tools to reduce volatility and sustain income. I’d love to hear your thoughts on whether this approach resonates with what you believe could work best in today’s market environment."
Reply to markm:
"Thanks for pointing that out, markm! You’re absolutely right that accumulating Satoshis can be a key motivator for many in this space, and this is something my project is designed to accommodate. While some participants might prefer USD equivalence, I firmly believe in providing flexibility. The system’s underlying model is built to ensure consistent returns, whether they’re measured in Bitcoin or fiat.
In essence, we’re prioritizing stability and long-term income over quick trading gains. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what specific mechanisms (e.g., staking, altcoin yields) might align well with this philosophy. Also, feel free to share any strategies you think could help further enhance Bitcoin accumulation for participants.
So you want to build a system that buys/sells bitcoin to maximize USD profits?
Where do you get that idea, I didn't see anything about any fiat whatsoever in the original post, let alone specifically USD.
Wouldn't bitcoin profits be sufficient?
A stable level of satoshis coming in would be nice enough wouldn't it, why bring up fiat at all?
-MarkM-
You’re absolutely right that accumulating Satoshis can be a key motivator for many in this space, and this is something my project is designed to accommodate. While some participants might prefer USD equivalence, I firmly believe in providing flexibility. The system’s underlying model is built to ensure consistent returns, whether they’re measured in Bitcoin or fiat.
In essence, we’re prioritizing stability and long-term income over quick trading gains. I’d love to hear your thoughts on what specific mechanisms (e.g., staking, altcoin yields) might align well with this philosophy.
So you want to build a system that buys/sells bitcoin to maximize USD profits?
Where do you get that idea, I didn't see anything about any fiat whatsoever in the original post, let alone specifically USD.
Wouldn't bitcoin profits be sufficient?
A stable level of satoshis coming in would be nice enough wouldn't it, why bring up fiat at all?
-MarkM-
So you want to build a system that buys/sells bitcoin to maximize USD profits?
Jump to: