Ah, ok, ta.
Was reading here.
I have only just got up though.
Ah, ok, ta.
Was reading here.
I have only just got up though.
Quite the contrary chap, perhaps you confuse this community with a bunch of traders.
Seems very odd that you compare traders with Safe Network supporters.
UniSwap is a decentralized exchange. Your keys, your crypto. This is the right way. Safe is struggling to free us from the middlemen. We have a very bad history with centralized exchanges.
UniSwap has the potential to free us from them and they know it, so they listed the UNI token literally everywhere within 1 day…
Who Safe Network supporters or traders. Again you appear to confuse the two.
In my opinion, there is no difference between the two. We have currency, it is normal for every Safe Network supporter to want to sell or buy it. This is normally done on an exchange. Middlemen are something we want to get rid of. Middlemen for our information and Middlemen for our money…
Nice summary, reads like a horror show, but all of it real. IIRC bitker cost us about $50,000 but that’s from memory, in any case out here in the wild west some of the early exchange folk are worse then the very worst corrupt bankers. Getting away form middlemen as you say is a much better proposition.
I am not into trading or exchanges so much, but you keep bringing up uniswap, does that not need to be erc20 or can it handle omni? I probably should know but …
Yes, but in this case I was talking about PDC - it has ERC20 token in UniSwap.
I didn’t, sounds like a typically fantastic community response. Let’s us get on launching, thanks guys.
But in the case of Uniswap, getting away from the middle man, leaves alot of questions unanswered.
Decentralized pool exchanges like Uniswap that have pools, instead of orderbooks where buyers set bid price and meet sellers who set sell price.
A pool needs to be relative very large to facilitate even small trades as the price depends on the balance between Ethereum in the pool and market pair.
With the none linear function to determine price in pools, it seems to open for manipulations. These pools seems to have basic fundamental logic problems. I think many, including me, have problems with these pools and probably won’t use them. But as long as they are not funded with community funds that could go to centralized exchanges or orderbook decentralized exchanges, then I have no problem if people use them.
In UniSwap version 2 you can trade any token directly against any other token. You have a huge liquidity for everything.
I haven’t added PDC in version 2 yet because of the high fees (150$ last time I tried), but it’s only a matter of time before most wallets start supporting the second tiers ETH solutions and the fees become less than 1 cent en masse.
Such solution needs trusted central server owned by trusted authority. Who will trust those ERC20 tokens? ERC20 conversion was offered by swissprivatebanker but without maidsafe standing behind the process the erc20 token will hardly have such value as original OMNI token.
What is the difference between buying from HitBTC or from community run private server? Just buy and withdraw…
If it would make MaidSafe happier I can also fully document the whole working of this swap. I want to take as much weight of the Maidsafe developers but also like to be very transparent about how everything works.
Maybe a multi-signature solution would work here?
I understand the need for erc maid.
I understand ppl like uniswap.
But I hope as a community we can possibly explore some other decentralised exchanges, of which tbh I have 0 experience.
My main concern is without a huge liquidity pool, someone with big pockets will be able to buy maid at a discounted price due to how uniswap works, then offer that maid on centralised exchanges at a lower than market price, pulling maid overall price down.
I think this can be mitigated by using uniswap sell orders as opposed to the liquidity pool?
@DeusNexus - are you aiming to have your solution as an open 2 way bridge that ppl can easily change back to omni maid?
That is not how Uniswap or any other automated market making solution works. If you have deep pockets it would be prohibitively expensive to buy up all the maid, the whale would never be able to sell it at a profit. All that would happen is other sellers will flood in to sell their Maid at huge premiums to the silly whale who thought they can just buy up all the liquidity just because it was (initially) at pocket change prices for them. Worth taking the time to understand this space it now manages billions in value in a completely decentralised way, is here to stay and for very good reasons.
No. There are much better ways, decentralised finance is just starting but the emphasis is on the decentralised part. A fully decentralised smart contract implementing a two way bridge on one of the decentralised cross chain projects is the only solution that can be independently verified and so, trusted. One where anyone can audit the smart contract(s) governing the two way swap.
If you are going to put development time in don’t waste it on a centralised solution that will be pretty much guaranteed to fail: very few will trust it no matter what multisig system is used to “secure” part (exactly the Omni Maid half) of the swap process. Any centralised unseen bugs or malicious intent would be free to inflate the ERC-20 half of the swap regardless of multisig.
See Fusion chain and maybe Ren Project for possible candidates. In addition to building a trusted decentralised system you would also be refining smart contract dev skills that are currently in very high demand.
I would just add that anything you do develop, it will (hopefully) have a short shelf life. When Safecoin arrives it would be back to the drawing board for the two way bridge and I think one of the main reasons nobody has bothered to put the time in to date.
I observe the exact opposite. People throw millions into smart contracts without audits and lose them. I prefer to trust a person willing to take responsibility and a proven working solution working like WBTC…
My main point is there is no need (to go the old-school centralised “trust us” route). There are better decentralised ways and the dev skills picked up doing it are useful way beyond this short term project which will expire when Safecoin arrives.
I understand what you are saying, but if one can be done easily and quickly and the other after hundreds of hours of work, I prefer the easy and fast…
That may not be the case. The Fusion team appear to be bending over backwards to help people develop on their chain so a developer would have access to a lot of help and resources. A centralised solution might be quick to implement but if very few people use it due to trust issues then it is time wasted in the end.