Janitorial Juice #19
Janitorial Juice #19
Conversation
|
Gimme dat JUICE |
| * "Earnest money" | ||
| * Deposit ownership | ||
| Signers put their own <<Bonding,funds at risk>> to assure depositors there will | ||
| be no foul play. The bonds they put down are capital that could otherwise be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Notably, they also do work on behalf of the network.
custodial-fees/index.adoc
Outdated
| 0.75% lost to the costs of custody. | ||
|
|
||
| A decentralized model should allow a lower effective fee on custody by | ||
| introducing more competition to the space. There's a caveat, however- a |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
--, probsies. Can't even believe you're using hyphens instead of endashes. WHO ARE YOU ;)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incredibly unfamiliar with adoc is who I am 😛
| :custodial-fee: 20% | ||
| :base-custodial-time: 2 months | ||
| Once a deposit has been made and funded, the backing TBTC are minted. The | ||
| _custodial fee rate_ coupled with the _minimum custodial lockup period_ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What's the minimum custodial lockup period?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Incoming. Going to rework it but it's basically how you get the "custody fee security deposit"
custodial-fees/index.adoc
Outdated
|
|
||
| Over time, the _custodial deposit_ is earned by signers, who will be paid for | ||
| their efforts when the `Deposit` is redeemed. Half of the unwithdrawn _minimum | ||
| custodial deposit_ must be maintained at all times for a `Deposit` to be |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is this half set, or is it the parameter that decides the two undercollateralization thresholds?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm setting it here, but there are reasons to make it a third parameter. Note this isn't quite the same issue as undercollateralization since it wouldn't be due to exchange rate fluctuations- the fee schedule is predictable
custodial-fees/index.adoc
Outdated
| custodial deposit_ must be maintained at all times for a `Deposit` to be | ||
| considered maintained. | ||
|
|
||
| `Deposit` s that fall below this threshold will be put up for auction, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Okay now you're just throwing backticks around because you think they make the word deposit look cool 😝
In seriousness, may be worth cross-linking to the bonding subsection on undercollateralization? Or we may need to split the auction process into its own higher-level section that both reference?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You're just watching me too closely- this is like 20 edits from where it needs to be
... and yeah I'm trying to be consistent w my terrible backtick choice lol
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I AM WATCHING YOU ALWAYS
No sorry---I thought you wanted to roll this into an initial version to send to folks, so I tried to get you some thoughts before I bounced for the evening/weekend. My bad 🙊
|
@Shadowfiend reduced the scope of this- ready for another look! |
|
Looking for a 👍 from one of you @prestwich 😀 |
Be clear about what's collateral vs the actual pegged asset.
|
Ready for another one look! |
custodial-fees/index.adoc
Outdated
| `1 / min(m, n)` in deposit security and | ||
| `1 / min(m, n) * OverCollateralizationFactor` in bonds, assuming for a moment | ||
| a shared value currency. | ||
| `1 / min(m, n)` in deposit security, or `1 / m` as `m` is strictly less than `n` |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
strictly less is not strictly true :P
other than that I think this is good
There was a problem hiding this comment.
lol that's embarrassing. Tempted to argue semantics around "threshold" vs "multisig" to save face but that wasn't even what I was trying to say
There was a problem hiding this comment.
"tempted to argue" sounds like it could be the title of my autobiography
|
ACK |
First pass at the custodial fee structure.