[bisq-network/proposals] Change way how we determine the BSQ rate for a DAO cycle (#270)

[chimp1984]

> _This is a Bisq Network proposal. Please familiarize yourself with the [submission and review process](https://docs.bisq.network/proposals.html)._


Currently we determine the BSQ/USD rate from the 30 days average of the market price based on our trade statistics. This was a poor choice as the trade statisics data are not verifiable and can be faked. Such seems to has happened just [now](https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/269) as a few trades are far off the market price and with bigger BTC amounts they had considerable influence on the average price. This can have been caused from a self trade or from publishing fake trade statistics. The data from trade statistics was never intended to be used for anything critical but only for informational purposes, due the known weakness of those data.

Suggested change: 
As discussed in https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/269#issuecomment-715751571 I would like to suggest that following change:
The compensation maintainer (@MwithM) will make a proposal 5-8 days before proposal time ends with suggesting a realistic BSQ/USD rate. This can be based on the 30 and 90 days average if there are no outliers, otherwise he should try to remove the impact of the outliers. As also the 30 or 90 days average could be manipulated in a more sophisticated way BSQ traders who recently traded should veto in case the rate seems un-realistic. The Burningman can play here an important controller role as well, as he needs to trade frequently and knows which offers are really taken. If there are no concerns about the suggeste rate this rate will be considered as accepted by rough consensus. If there is not clear consensus, @MwithM should do a DAO proposal to be voted on. There could be multiple competing proposals, if that is the case the accepted proposal with the highest vote weight is the winner.

I suggest that for this cycle we do also the DAO voting on a suggested rate, even if there is consensus reached on the GH proposal. As we change a kind of "social" contract a DAO vote gives that change more weight and legitimacy. 

As the BSQ trade fee adjustment is also based on the 30/90 days average I think we should extend that to that as well. We could simple take the suggested rate from the past DAO cycles instead. 

@MwithM Sorry to put those burden on you without first asking you. Are you ok with taking that responsibility? Otherwise anyone else who can take that task?

A side note:
The BSQ rate used for compensation requests is anyway just a tool to get a common anchor for the exchange rate. If one particular contributor disagrees he just should adjust his requested USD value to match to his own personal converison rate. But he should not be surprised if voters reject his request in case they think the BSQ amount is too high according to the different rate they use. To have a consensus about a rate should help to avoid such conflicts and mis-interpretations, but it is not a hard enforcement. Thus this change should be seen in that context.


-- 
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub:
https://github.com/bisq-network/proposals/issues/270
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bisq.network/pipermail/bisq-github/attachments/20201024/5d8aa472/attachment.html>