Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Increase BSQ max issuance parameter #160

Open
wiz opened this issue Dec 28, 2019 · 9 comments
Open

Increase BSQ max issuance parameter #160

wiz opened this issue Dec 28, 2019 · 9 comments

Comments

@wiz
Copy link
Member

@wiz wiz commented Dec 28, 2019

This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the submission and review process.

The Bisq DAO has a "BSQ max issuance" parameter. If more BSQ is approved to be issued than this parameter in a single cycle, all compensation requests will be forcefully rejected for that cycle. Currently this parameter is set to 200K BSQ, and last cycle the DAO approved over 150K BSQ worth of compensation requests, so we are now dangerously close to hitting this parameter and having everyone's compensation requests denied.

Of course, it would be best if we implement a budgeting system as per proposal #158 - but I feel the budgets are a "soft limit", whereas this BSQ max issuance parameter is the "hard limit" - we need to be very careful never to hit this or we will lose our compensations and it will be very bad for the DAO.

Simply as a safety measure, I propose to increase this parameter to 300K BSQ just to give us some more breathing room. We should obviously issue far less than the current value of 200K BSQ using proper budgets, but for some reason if a few large compensation requests come in at the same time, we could inadvertently hit the limit and mess up everything.

@chimp1984

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chimp1984 chimp1984 commented Dec 28, 2019

I agree that increasing might be good, as the reimbursement for the refund agent could be very high in the worst case and it would be very bad if we would delay a cycle and increase volatility risk in such a case. It can be changed by max. 2 times, so 400 000 would be max change in once vote.

@MwithM

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@MwithM MwithM commented Dec 29, 2019

I agree to this proposal, reaching BSQ max issuance would be very bad for Bisq, as all CR would be resubmitted next cycle leaving a big backlog.

Maybe high stakeholders also can support Bisq by working for free until revenues get higher. Free work
by stakeholders pays double, as protecting an investment and as not inflating BSQ.

They could work for free or not work at all. DAO was created to pay for their work in case some of them wanted to be paid for it, Bisq just needs to control BSQ issuance to keep BSQ being valuable.

I guess Bisq will be always open to altruistic contributors.

@m52go

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@m52go m52go commented Dec 29, 2019

How about enforce this by not compensating high stakeholders in hard times like this?

From what I've seen, some of the biggest Bisq stakeholders are also the most altruistic ones.

@m52go

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@m52go m52go commented Dec 29, 2019

I don't think anyone is suggesting we actually issue more BSQ. As I understand it, this proposal is intended as a safety measure to handle future cycles of high issuance.

@sqrrm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Dec 29, 2019

As the value of BSQ has been falling it's quite reasonable to increase the max issuance to at least keep it at a stable level value wise. I also agree that hitting the ceiling would be quite bad for the DAO as an event, and then there would be the backlog to deal with. Better be proactive an raise the limit as this limit was only introduced to limit damage from bugs rather than meant as a tool to limit the budget.

@chimp1984

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chimp1984 chimp1984 commented Dec 29, 2019

This parameter was added for security to limit max. possible damage of issuance per cycle not as limit in an economic sense.

@mpolavieja

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@mpolavieja mpolavieja commented Jan 13, 2020

Isn´t an extremely harsh measure to reject all compensation requests when compensation is greater than "BSQ max issuance" parameter? Wouldn´t it be more reasonable in that case to proportionally readjust down the compensation to everyone?

If this is feasible, then the "BSQ max issuance" parameter could work as a general budget limit that can be proposed and voted on each cycle for the next one.

@sqrrm

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

@sqrrm sqrrm commented Jan 14, 2020

@mpolavieja That would be a hard fork. For not upgraded nodes they would see all compensation requests rejected if more than max value was requested while newer nodes would see valid BSQ created.

I don't think this is worth a hard fork. It's also not trivial to make changes to the DAO in itself, not considering it would be a hard fork.

@chimp1984

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

@chimp1984 chimp1984 commented Jan 14, 2020

@mpolavieja This limit was added as security measurement to limit max. issuance in case of a security flaw. It was not intended to use it as limitation for management decisions (who much Bisq wants to spend).

Also we should consider the DAO not as a subject for changes. We don't have the dev resources and any change carries high risk which mostly is not justified by the requested change. Bug fixes are an exception but also only if they are critical.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
6 participants
You can’t perform that action at this time.