Proposal “infra-lqd-pvd-201611“ (Closed)Back

Title:Infrastructure - Liquidity Providers (Nov.)
Owner:babygiraffe
One-time payment: 32 DASH (29010 USD)
Completed payments: 1 totaling in 32 DASH (0 month remaining)
Payment start/end: 2016-11-04 / 2016-12-19 (added on 2016-10-17)
Final voting deadline: in passed
Votes: 609 Yes / 77 No / 0 Abstain

Proposal description

This is a cross-post from the Dash Forum

The liquidity provider team supports the network by providing liquidity for mixing on the network. Results for mixing on the network have resulted in dramatically shorter mixing times, which in the past could have taken as long as a few days to complete. This proposal simply extends the liquidity providers program for one additional month, adjusted to the most recent exchange rate.

Requested funding is as follows for the November 4th budget cycle:
Total: 32.05 Dash

Exchange rate risk is carried only by the liquidity provider team and not the network.

Show full description ...

Discussion: Should we fund this proposal?

Submit comment
 
0 points,1 year ago
i wish we did not need this but for now we do so yes.
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Yes, the next version should support multiple sessions and hopefully that will eliminate the need for this if everything works out the way it's planned :)
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
How does providing dash to liquidity providers work? What does it pay for? Who are the liquidity providers? What are their costs?
Reply
1 point,1 year ago
Liquidity providers keep an open wallet with a minimum of 100 Dash in it, constantly mixing. Liquidity providers have to keep a computer running 24/7 and pay any fees that are incurred.

What the network gains is availability of funds for mixing, so that anyone who wants to mix can do so quickly, and not have to wait forever to get their coins mixed.

If you think about it, Liquidity providers are exposing their coins (though unlocked for denomination only) in order to do that. I think we get the service cheap.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Thanks for letting me know more about it. I realize it is important. How can we know who is doing this and at what cost to them? The time, risk involved (if any), cpu and bandwidth all have value and should be compensated to keep mixing active. I agree. I just want to be sure that there is transparency and proper information to us about it.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
The core team chose everyone (I think 6 people) and did so privately because they didn't want to hear "why did you choose him? I wanted it, I don't like him...etc..." They chose people that they felt they could rely on. So to keep it simple and avoid discontent, they just kept it quiet.
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Perhaps someone can post an information webpage or pdf about this to keep it going, so whenever anyone wants to get more details about what they are voting for... :)
Reply
0 points,1 year ago
Thanks!
Reply