-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 10
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
BSQ rates voting for cycle 19 #271
Comments
I added some tools to make your life easier ;-) |
First post edited, I raised prices for 90 day. |
I was waiting for prices to be included into the next block to be reduced. Now I worry if the proposal tx might not get to be voted for this cycle. |
All good, already confirmed....but better to not risk for last minute.... |
Closed as approved through DAO voting on Cycle 18. |
After detecting that BSQ averages calculated from price statistics are being manipulated with way overpriced trades, we have to determine what's the price via vote as proposed in #270
30 Day BTC/BSQ: 0.00005600
30 Day USD/BSQ: 0.65
90 Day BTC/BSQ: 0.00005770
90 Day USD/BSQ: 0.67
5600 sats is the price Wiz estimated here for 30 Day Average and very close to the price of a recent trade I was involved into. This is how I estimate USD/BSQ price: I got 11.600USD as 30 day EMA from a trading app. 0.0000560*11600=0,649USD/BSQ.
90 Day averages are roughly estimated considering that on the Bisq DAO prices are lower for 90 than 30 days.
I'll wait for tomorrow 26Oct 13:00GMT to send this proposal for DAO voting. Data above is subject to change depending on your comments. I won't edit this post once the proposal has been submitted to DAO. You can send a proposal with different parameters to DAO voting and the one with more weight will be used.
Edit: I changed prices for 90 day after removing outliers. 30 day prices stay the same, I'm confident that prices for 30 day are ok. I'm sending this to DAO voting soon, no further edit of this proposal is expected.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: