Topic: StableCoin - page 4. (Read 8998 times)

Wow, so many thing to respond to. I want to write one coherent post so that is going to mean replying to several of you out of order. I tried to keep the quote references pointing back to their respective complete posts. In general this post reverences posts by.
@herzmeister, BubbleBoy, Impaler, Etlase2

BubbleBoy,

I can't stop MY MIND from jumping to conclusions, and it has jumped to generally the same conclusions as you. So DON'T consider any of this post an attempt to refute anything you are saying. My current best guess is that you are exactly correct. However, sometimes thinking about things that seem completely impractical leads to a certain clarity.

A long while back Etlase2 proposed what you call MordorCoin (EnCoin). He claimed you could get stability by requiring the generation of 1 EnCoin to REQUIRE expending 1 KWH of electricity. I thought I was misunderstanding him because that concept seemed stupid. There's clearly not enough information I thought at the time. Nobody would waste so many posts on so stupid an idea.

I decided he must be trying to say, "1 EnCoin is equal to the COST of 1 KWH of electricity." That still seemed impractical and stupid but at least the units of the equation matched. Both were measures of value at least. That had to be what Etlase2 meant. At least, that's what I thought.

So even though I thought it was impratical and stupid I decided to explore the concept. Surely Etlase2 wouldn't allow so many people to call him an idiot, over and over, if he wasn't on to something? It didn't take long before I had some plausible ideas so I posted them in the EnCoin thread. Etlase2 kept calling me an idiot who couldn't understand his most basic concepts. So I'd look at what I wrote, find a flaw and fix it...

After about a week, I found a solution that created a StableCoin. It used the cost of electricity to discourage over production of coins. But it didn't actually need to peg the price to the cost of electricity. Instead it used non-linear equations. The logic went,
1. When the system is in equilibrium, it should cost exactly as much in electricity cost to generate a coin as that coin is worth. Therefore ZERO people would rationally choose to generate a coin.
2. When external demand increases the value of a coin will move above equilibrium. Therefor EVERY rational person would choose to generate new coins. LET THEM! Then increase the difficulty of generating coins in proportion to the number of coins rational people chose to generate.
3. The speculators must then RACE to the exchanges to sell their coins before the exchange rate falls back to their personal cost of electricity. Otherwise they can't pay their electric bill.
4. Increasing the supply of coins AT THE EXCHANGE puts downward pressure on the price.
5. Increasing the difficulty, increases the cost of generating new coins, pushing the system back to equilibrium.
6. (Tired of typing. Pretend the logic for when the value falls below equilibrium is here.)

I thought it was genius. I'd proved that a StableCoin could theoretically be created. Etlase2, however, still thought I was an idiot. My presumption wasn't what he was saying at all. I had failed to understand his most basic premise. He was proposing that it always on average required 1 KWH to generate 1 Coin.

I thought the concept was silly, but just as an exercise I decided to see if I could make his concept work. I could! He was correct a stable coin could be created using his principles. So for the sake of having another concrete example of a potential StableCoin, I wrote it up for discussion as GEM. (the link is above in this thread somewhere.)

Now when I wrote it up, I still thought the MordorCoin concept was stupid. It SHOULD NOT require so much energy to create a stable currency. WTF! the Federal Reserve and Bureau of Engraving and Printing combined don't use that much energy!

But at least three people were discussing the concept so I decided not to derail the discussion. I figured that if I could convince 10 people that a StableCoin was plausible, then I'd work on convincing them we could make the whole system more electrically efficient.

Unfortunately, we never got more that 4 people to believe that StableCoins could be created without REQUIRING a central exchange to directly make monetary policy decisions. We had PROVED the opposite at least 3 separate ways, but we couldn't overcome everyone's preconceived notions.

That said...


You are absolutely right, we couldn't write a program to do all that.


It's also pretty clear to me that someone or something has to have some relationship to the external reality in order to create any meaningful stability. The functions CANNOT be only self-referential.

Who observes the external world, and how they do so, are the open questions.

If you want to stabilize a ship on the open sea, you don't need a reference to stable land to do so. You don't need a reference wave height, period, or relative sea level. You need external information to "leak" into the system. In this case the information leaks in through MOMENTUM. A change in position requires movement. Movement has a velocity. A change in velocity requires acceleration. Acceleration of a known mass equals implies the external force applied. (Not a great explanation)

But the point is that while the inference chain may be long... computers calculate really fast! As long as we figure out where the appropriate information leaks into the system, we can stabilize it.



I think Impaler might be on to something to. Again I'm not exactly sure how the information "leaks" into the system, but it sure seams like it might.


I think you are saying the same thing. But just to be clear we need to understand where EXTERNAL REALITY leaks into our system, before anyone or anything can determine the proper forces to stabilize it.



Speculating through futures IS VOTING. Importantly it is voting by people who are ACTUALLY OBSERVING the external world rationally. Voting by people who are thinking "philosophically" like fixed-coin bitcoin fanboys doesn't leak any useful information into the system.


I agree that SOMEONE somewhere needs access to this information before it can "leak" into our system. However, I'm not ready to jump to conclusions that it must be measured by a trusted authority or deliberately injected. In fact, as with my ship stabilization example, and my initial StableCoin example it might already be measurable based upon a derivative value. In both cases observation is done by measuring "acceleration". In my StableCoin example, I measured the change in coin generation velocity. From that I could infer what speculators had observed in the external market.

And yes I agree, using a reference point we don't have to calculate makes this conversation and system design easier and faster. It might make the conversation much less fascinating!


I agree with this logic, but I'm not ready to commit to a decision yet. I'm reasonably convinced that if we can prove we can stabilize to any CPI particular proxy, we could just as easily stabilize to any of the others as well. While the choice of with CPI proxy to use makes an interesting debate. I don't think that choice is on our "critical path" at the moment.



We'll probably have to standardize on some terms. I propose the following definitions for discussion:

StableCoin - An abstract class of COINS which have the shared property that their monetary policy (coin creation/destruction bounding algorithms) will never allow the coin's future value to "tend toward infinity" or "tend toward zero" given the case of unbounded adoption and unbounded increase in external value traded.

GrailCoin - sub-class of StableCoin whose value attempts to always tend toward the value it had on the day the coin was first launched. It should retain long term value stability even if every reference its value can be measured against varies independently.

InertiaCoin - a subclass of StableCoin whose value is intended to deliberately resist change. InertiaCoin may be pushed off its initial price by extreme external conditions. But it will always re-stabilize to some appropriate value. (non zero, non infinite) Any coin with infinite inertia IS A GrailCoin. But not all GrailCoins need be InertiaCoins. Grail coins always move back to their initial value when pushed off. InfiniteInertia means the value can never be pushed off.

MordorCoin - a sub-class of StableCoin requiring a fixed expenditure of electricity to mine.

CPICoin - a specific StableCoin whose value tends toward a particular measurable consumer price index.
FiatCoin - a specific StableCoin whose exchange rate value tends toward a particular fiat currency.
DollarCoin, EuroCoin, YenCoin, etc. - A FiatCoin intended to always trade 1 to 1 with USD, Euro, Yen, etc.

For reverence, my initial coin (described above) was an InertiaCoin.
GEM was a MordorCoin.



Einstein talked about standing in a free-falling elevator. It helped him visualize what was truly necessary and what was superfluous to the problem at hand. I don't think he ever intended that people actually stand in free-falling elevators because it would facilitate their epiphany.

:-)

Leaving the information issue aside, I was saying that tying the value to something like hardware and electricity cost is still not a good solution. Energy shocks and rapid technical changes would influence the value of money. 3D chips, war with Iran, nuclear fusion, and many other similar things would open the door wide to speculators looking to extract value from the users of the currency.

If you target the costs of producing a certain computational work, then yes, you don't need external information. But that cannot be a stable coin, or can it ? Can you explain briefly how are you going about regaining  stability ? It's not clear from your proposal because there are allot of low level technical details.

It *does not* require external information. I repeat, you are criticizing a proposal that you think I've written rather than the actual proposal. While at the same time you are proposing that the solution is more external information. You are going to run into walls every step of the way in trying to make a system that relies on external information that is also completely decentralized.

I'm pretty sure you've made that proposal:


It can be done but it's not the ideal target and it still requires external information.

In a non-fiat, decentralized currency, the production cost of money cannot be zero.


You aren't patronizing my proposal, you are criticizing a proposal you think I've written.

Constant 50 coins per block is deflationary in the long run. 50 years from now the yearly expansion drops under 2%, sufficiently low to make people today go bonkers about their future fortune. It's also incentivizes people to waste useful stuff in order to get currency (MordorCoin), not a nice thing IMO.

Lots of discussions. Peg it to the dollar, peg it to a basket of commodities.

But I wonder, don't we have a very natural way of pegging it to something quite meaningful -electricity cost?

Couldn't we fix the reward to 50 coins forever, and fix as well the increase of difficulty -to follow Moore's law; so that more miners=more coins?
Then the market would take care. If price goes up too much, the reward for miners wil skyrocket: many will enter the market, more coins will be produced, and the price will go down to its production cost; which, as difficulty increases roughly in sync with computing power, should be relatively stable.

Of course you have to forget about the 21M coins ever and so the 100000000000000000000$/coin many here hope for. But in exchange you'll get a decently stable currency relative to the cost of energy, which is quite linked to the cost of life as everything requires energy; all the same without being linked to the value of dollars, and thus wholly independent from the FED.

@Impaler, Red: the in-block futures market where a certain proportion of coins is "frozen" for some time has a major drawback: if I can prove that I own the frozen money (using the private key), then I can still spend them out of chain. I can deposit the frozen block to a bank, earn interest, and the bank has 100% certainty that at the unfroze date it has access to the money. The mere promise of future money is money too (near-money), this is how banks operate. So the bidders don't give up anything by having the money frozen, other than the convenience of intra-blockchain transfer. The bid price will collapse as soon as reliable out-of-block transfers are available (like checking accounts drawn on StableCoins) and you won't discover any real-world information.

You really need access to some real currency market. Like the built in market in Ripple for example. Since anyone can create an IOU and tilt the market, maybe a distributed graph analysis can detect the "real" price that most of the network agrees too. Something like PageRank where links between a subnet of pages (IOUs traded by related entities) cannot manipulate the global importance of that subnet.


Yes, that's a restatement of the stability problem. "The production cost of money" should be zero because money is information. So my chain of thought is as follows:

1. A StableCoin needs to maintain it's value in reference to a basket of common goods, otherwise it's unstable by definition; speculation, bubbles, etc.
2. We have no chance to compute the value of that basket with a distributed algorithm
3. There is no monetary law that can guarantee intrinsic price stability, it's an economic impossibility
4. Therefore we need to find some proxy of SC's CPI, and peg it's long term value to it; if the long term value is credible, the market will do the short term and price stickiness will appear
5. What CPI proxy to use ?

It seems that real world central banks have a pretty good grip on this problem and regular currencies are more or less stable, so pegging to a real world currency, be it USD, EUR, GBP, or a basket like SDR, is probably the best we can practically achieve. It's also a single number that we need to discover or be told, so it seems a reliable distributed algorithm, be it a vote from the users or an internal market, can agree to it's value.

On the other hand, pegging to energy or hardware costs is not an optimal idea because energy is relatively volatile. Energy should be just a component of SC's CPI. I don't want to sound patronizing towards your proposal, I just think it's an objectively worse CPI than simply leveraging the USD rate. Nor is it possible to find out the energy costs without external information. So if we need external information either way, why not use the best CPI proxy we can find, the exchange rate ?


Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Like the Bitcoin speculators do when they claim  prices will be stable once everybody is using their currency. Well if prices vary 100% on a daily basis, we will never get to the "everybody is using it" part.

I think a cryptocurrency that stays within a 20% band for a few months relative to the USD dollar and allows people to make instant transactions around the world with small fees and good privacy would be a glorious achievement. We can build from there.

I think you need to think about StableCoin as being a replacement currency rather than a complementary one. Think bigger and these problems are less important. Besides, these problems are no different than the problems that international commerce already deals with. Any cryptocurrency intended to replace or complement a fiat currency is going to have issues like this until it is accepted up and down the chain. It isn't a strong enough reason to focus on fixing day to day valuations, which I think is detrimental to progress.


I'm beginning to thing this is actually mandatory. But I'd love to hear your thought on this.