pull down to refresh
I feel this is the best offer I could share, when compared with @Darthcoin and @noknees ones.
But you're right, I should re-evaluate. I'm getting confused with all this ~math.
Of course you can, just maybe not you. There are people that have less use for the CCs they have and there are people that want to buy them at a discount, because they don't have an attached wallet. Even better: I have a 50k sat bill every month that is a great use for CCs and I'd totes buy CCs at a discount for that, even while I have an attached wallet.
So demand, through a discount, is always there. The question is: who has a ton of CCs and needs them liquid? I've seen @0xbitcoiner offer sats for CCs all the time.
Right now I’ve got a decent CC buffer, but I’m always buying. SN isn’t gonna run out tomorrow, right? Hahaha
By trading peer-to-peer here instead, every zap supports the ~AGORA territory and the stackers reward pool.
okay.
- If you want to facilitate something with CCs, work with @ek, without the bickering. If you work together, maybe you can automate a p2p order matching system / bot, which will always be more capital efficient than a middleman account. Sure, no one will make 90% margins on all trades like a bank, but then, we know banks are bad.
- If you need someone to help out with territory cost, ask other stackers and start in saloon. Many territories have benefactors now; we rescued ~Music too.
There were 4 p2p offers in August, 1 swap from you guys and 3 that seemed organic: 2x true supply and 1x true demand from non-affiliated traders. That's not enough. Personally I'm extremely wary of physical goods ordering, so I need to think this through, but I have a definite need for things (for example, I'd like to have some 2nd hand bitaxes for testing, and I'll definitely need some ESP32-C5s for my countersurveillance program) - I just don't have a secure way to receive these.
That's a good point, do you think his 0.5 sats/CC rate is just for simplicity? I thought the best offer was the one from @Darthcoin, 1sat per CC. is selling at loss.
Your calc says (ask side):
Trading 1,000 CC: you pay 1000 sats and receive 700 CC (300 CC lost to the 30% fee).
so that's worse than this offer. It's also listed at the bottom of the book (correctly so). The bid side is of course the best offer, because that matches k00b's at a loss for the maker. But Darth "left", so is it even actual?
PS: Your depth graph is not a depth graph. You need to invert the bids and you need max order size, not min.
Edit, cuz forgot to answer:
is just for simplicity?
No, I think it is what surplus means. Read the post. bullish has CCs they don't need. That's it. They're liquidating them.
brainfart
Yeah, it doesn’t make economic sense, but it’s also true that no one’s holding a gun to their heads and forcing them to negotiate!
I send 1129 sats to you, I get 1000 CC.
I send 1000 sats to wallets/cowboy-credits, I get 1000 CC
Why would I pay 12.9% premium for CCs?