This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
Price-wise, Celsius has been performing sh*t over the last month. I wouldn’t really use that as one of the tokens to look up to. Where do you propose to get the funds to reward people? We’ve already dismissed buybacks.
Why do we need a negative rebase? Shrinking the supply. Less supply == higher price. If anything DIGG grew too quickly, it was bound to contract. If you believe that DIGG will eventually get closer to the USD price peg of Bitcoin, I’d say that DIGG is the cheapest version of bitcoin out there right now and I’d be buying it up like mad. Oh wait…
Celsius on the big picture
We can create another Token
Hero Token to reward HoDler or even call it HODL Token. I just want have a discussion on DIGG if it can hold the peg to btc or it will never move together with btc
I would not mind seeing I different mechanisms on the way down , some kind of adjustment.
I would agree nobody likes a negative rebase, normal tokens manage to drop in price easily enough without a negative rebase, I think people would jump back in much quicker if it was below peg and negative rebase did not exist.
Also even though it meant to be pegged at BTC price, I’m not sure there would be any complaints if it goes/sits above the pegged price.
It would also be simpler for noobs buying, “price under peg= buy ,no penalties”. Surely that would create more upward pressure.
“It hasn’t really worked very well” is the entire premise of your post. Reads like a panic post accordingly - similar to the posts I saw when Badger dropped from $12 to $6.
DIGG is an experiment so we should ensure we have a full dataset before we make any decisions as to whether anything should be adjusted. We are about to have our second negative rebase (we had multiple more positive rebases (not two)) so lets let things play out for a while before judging whether anything is broken or not.
I would say it’s too early to start changing parameters. Let’s let this play out some more and see how it goes, gather more data. Also the buy and sell contracts to help stabilize price have not been deployed yet. In the future I think we could look at changing digg parameters if it still can’t maintain a reasonable peg.
Ideas like removing negative rebase are too extreme defeats the concept of a rebase coin.
However, I do believe we were bit too aggressive in slashing Badger rewards completely to zero for DIGG sets.
I propose we keep 10% Badger rewards for DIGG sets instead of the current 100% DIGG rewards, and gradually reduce this as and when DIGG and bDIGG gain utility.
The removal of Badger Reward out DIGG pool made me sell now most of my DIGG.
I just don’t feel Beta testing for now a product that tries to mimic BTC Prize. I just feel that a lot of things are missing. We are now going through a long period of negative rebase before the price of DIGG will go up. Before the APY of DIGG was higher now. I don’t feel like having money in the WBTC/DIGG.
A lot of UI Issues that also need to be fixed I have spend 2 hours just to move out my funds via Fat tool, because on the UI it didn’t show my funds
You are correct, this and many DeFi projects are not ready for early adopters who do not fully understand the financial mechanics or the technology. It is still very much early days and clearly you are too early to participate effectively for you. Thank you for your participation and the internet wishes you good luck.
That’s a rather a patronising comment
No, it isn’t. Constructive criticism and input are great. Whining is a turn-off.
If you don’t understand the mechanics, ask questions, don’t just assume that a negative rebase is actually negative. Don’t just whine about issues. This guy has been in the forums since day one and his manic posts are over the top. First it was shilling and now it is just complaining.
There are plenty of people who are extremely happy with Badger as shown by $1b TVL. If you aren’t happy because you don’t understand how things work or can’t accept that this project is literally weeks old and that we are all humans working around the clock to improve things, then please take the negative energy elsewhere.
I dont actually have a problem with Badger as it has earned me 100k$ but I dont think Rebase Tokens seem to be really viable I tried to explain another person how rebase tokens work and I couldnt convince to invest into a Rebase token, if you honestly look at rebase tokens you can think of them like being somehow pump and dump tokens to scam people?
like I pointed out utility drives price, but it is just sad to see rebase tokens like BaseProtocol die before people are able to launch or develop products. I would enjoy seeing people develop products that use DIGG Tokens but I dont see that happening soon if DIGG isnt able to stay close the the price of BTC. Let me watch from the side line if DIGG is reaching a peg to BTC.
Congrats on getting in early enough to net $100k.
Oh right! Because you couldn’t explain how a rebase token works, it must be bad.
DIGG != algostable. It is pegged and operated on a different entity. BTC. Totally different mechanics. You clearly don’t understand that since you keep thinking that all rebase tokens are all the same.
It is fantastically good that Base failed. It was an experiment. People learned. A big part of the failure is probably around people like you (ie: classic traders) who just don’t understand the math because it is a totally different ballgame. Happy to help get you up to speed. You should join the #digg-product channel on discord and read the great long thread from yesterday about the mechanics. That’s a lot more useful than just shitposting here.
And you talk about negativity, this is a place to put forward ideas, not for people to come to be belittled.
Am perfectly happy with badger and team thanks, and I understand how a rebase token works, I just don’t think talking down to people is the best way of going about things.
… and you say you understand how rebase tokens work.
I see someone taking the time to post on this forum and to make a proposal because he wants to improve DIGG for the community and for himself. And I see a badger-fanatic who cannot accept constructive critics and who choses to be aggressive. That’s not helping the debate and won’t help badger.
I am fully aware of how a rebase token works, I keep the conversation in a professional without degrading others.
Right DIGG expanded too fast and I it is contracting and you are able to buy BTC (or DIGG below the pegg price) but you basically will suffer from negative rebase. once the supply shrinks to enough and the demand stays the same then I jump back on the train and it will follow by a expansion
I prefer letting other buy into negative expansion and I prefer having a opportunistic mindset and just rebuy into DIGG once we expect to have a positive rebase. But it looks like we are going to have at least +10 days of negative rebase before we are going to experience a positive rebase again. the main reason is because the rebase happens split over 10 days on not once.
Welcome to the community. Please stick around. You will come to understand more as you progress.
Your comments here imply otherwise.
IMHO, I buy when it is below peg and contracting (I assume this is what you mean by negative expansion). Why you would want to buy more when it is more expensive and over peg is beyond me.