<p></p>
<p>Following the discussion at <a class="issue-link js-issue-link" data-error-text="Failed to load title" data-id="776558102" data-permission-text="Title is private" data-url="https://github.com/bisq-network/support/issues/684" data-hovercard-type="issue" data-hovercard-url="/bisq-network/support/issues/684/hovercard" href="https://github.com/bisq-network/support/issues/684">bisq-network/support#684</a> <a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/spx4000/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/spx4000">@spx4000</a> brought up some valid concern we should address.<br>
It is a bit off-topic to the proposal but I think it still fits into the wider problem field.</p>
<p>So due the volatility risks there is a risk that DAO reimbursements could be abused to get a free option on BSQ.<br>
<a class="user-mention" data-hovercard-type="user" data-hovercard-url="/users/spx4000/hovercard" data-octo-click="hovercard-link-click" data-octo-dimensions="link_type:self" href="https://github.com/spx4000">@spx4000</a> suggested to use a higher BSQ price and a guarantee that the burningman (BM) is trading those BSQ to that rate to reimburse the BTC.<br>
But that would cause a lot of distortion to the BSQ price.</p>
<p>What if we remove the agreement that the BM trades with the trader and to use the reimbursement price?<br>
So the BM would buy BSQ asap after he received the BTC on the market to market price and burns those.<br>
Later once the trader get issued his BSQ with 30 day average price he might be lucky that market price might be higher so he can sell to a better price and make some profit or if not lucky and price has fallen he would lose something in case he sells or keep the BSQ.</p>
<p>From the DAO perspective the DAO got burned 60k BSQ (at 2 BTC trade with 1 BSQ=1 USD).<br>
If price go up to 2 USD the trader receives 30k BSQ so for the DAO its positive as 60k got burned but only 30k got issued.<br>
If price goes down its the other way around and the DAO makes have issued more than it has burned.</p>
<p>I think to go back to that original model where there is no agreement that the trader can trade with the BM to a defined price solves all those problems and distributes volatility risk equally to traders and DAO.</p>

<p style="font-size:small;-webkit-text-size-adjust:none;color:#666;">—<br />You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.<br />Reply to this email directly, <a href="https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/292#issuecomment-771274489">view it on GitHub</a>, or <a href="https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AJFFTNSHDOV6JQUXX6ADDW3S45GUXANCNFSM4VQQP3FA">unsubscribe</a>.<img src="https://github.com/notifications/beacon/AJFFTNRGNBFOQPY32LSMYRTS45GUXA5CNFSM4VQQP3FKYY3PNVWWK3TUL52HS4DFVREXG43VMVBW63LNMVXHJKTDN5WW2ZLOORPWSZGOFX4LN6I.gif" height="1" width="1" alt="" /></p>
<script type="application/ld+json">[
{
"@context": "http://schema.org",
"@type": "EmailMessage",
"potentialAction": {
"@type": "ViewAction",
"target": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/292#issuecomment-771274489",
"url": "https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/292#issuecomment-771274489",
"name": "View Issue"
},
"description": "View this Issue on GitHub",
"publisher": {
"@type": "Organization",
"name": "GitHub",
"url": "https://github.com"
}
}
]</script>