bet icon indicating copy to clipboard operation
bet copied to clipboard

Request for a minimum balance required to operate a DCV or BVV

Open unpronounceableuser opened this issue 3 years ago • 4 comments

I respectfully request that a minimum balance of CHIPS be required to operate a DCV or BVV. An example: For the DCV at least a 1-1 requirement of CHIPS held to table limit.

The purpose of this is to assist in bootstrapping CHIPS value/ trading/ liquidity. CHIPS will easily suffer from a liquidity problem at launch. Players will seek to exit CHIPS in favor of high liquidity such as Bitcoin. Requiring a minimum value held by DCV at least equal to table limit or some % of table limit will help offset the inevitable sell pressure from CHIPS players cashing out.

A funded DCV may be more likely to continue hodl and host games then sell. Setting a minimum balance also attaches value to the DCV. The DCV owner is invested in CHIPS at this point and has incentive to promote CHIPS. Minimum balance also acts as spam control

unpronounceableuser avatar Mar 11 '21 03:03 unpronounceableuser

Though the protocol doesn't demand any necessity of holding the CHIPS by DCV and BVV. But from liquidity perspective this is very good thought as we knew the CHIPS liquidity is very less now and it has to be improved.

Like to have more thoughts on this from the CHIPS community for me to go ahead and support to it in the code.

sg777 avatar Mar 13 '21 05:03 sg777

I really like this idea. It falls right into Ownership Economy fundamentals. Those who use/play/own/facilitate in the project should have an incentive and be willing to increase the overall value of the project. Other than holding or selling the rake, there are currently no other incentive structures for a DCV or BVV node. If there was a minimum limit, it would incentivize those nodes to increase the overall value of the project, in whatever way they can (promoting, marketing, developing, creating third party applications).

This idea would generate a significant amount of value for CHIPS, that would scale no matter what the price of CHIPS against a fiat currency (like USD). The more dealers there are, the less CHIPS in circulation (they will remain out of circulation until the node decides not to provide their DCV or BVV functions anymore). This also helps with the worry that DCV nodes do not have anything at stake if they act maliciously (which they cannot, anyhow). It would be counter productive for a DCV to act maliciously because they are effectively reducing the value of the very thing they are holding.

I appreciate your thoughts and would love to see this incorporated.

I'd suggest it be a factor of the Big Blind(BB) for the table. Say, 100x the Big blind (this is the typical maximum buy-in amount for players on poker tables, including online tables). If the table BB is 100 CHIPS, the DCV node would require to own 10k CHIPS. If we put a USD value to CHIPS for this example, it may make more sense in peoples minds.

1/2 No limit example: Say CHIPS was worth $0.2 per CHIPS (Market Cap of ~$4.2million). If I as a DCV wanted to start a table with a Big Blind of 10 CHIPS ($2) and small blind of 5 CHIPS ($1). I would require 1000 CHIPS ($200). This is quite a reasonable amount when you start thinking that the rake they will get from the tables may pay this amount over a few weeks (and they can sell as soon as they do not want to be a DCV node anymore).

3/6 No limit example: BB = 30 CHIPS ($6) DCV requires 3000 CHIPS ($600).

For private tables that people want to run, they would set the BB to 2x a satoshi, and small blind 1x satoshi. They would then only require 100 satoshis of CHIPS to play a private game (say they were playing against friends). This amount could be gained from the faucetbot.

My two suggestions for how this could be implemented are:

  1. When the DCV node starts the table, their wallet is checked and the table will start if their balance=>100xBB. This method is a single check and we would have to figure out whether there is a check each hand after the table starts to ensure they don't immediately sell their holdings once the game starts. or
  2. Each hand, the DCV is required to add their 100xBB amount to the multisig address, and it is paid out after each hand, along with the pot to the players and the rake. This would further reduce the nothing at stake problem.

NutellaLicka avatar Mar 13 '21 06:03 NutellaLicka

@NutellaLicka it was nice explanation.

Purely from the implementation perspective point 2 which you mentioned that is making the dealer to deposit 100xBB with the cashier nodes is easy to add-on than checking funds with the dealer since all nodes operating in a its fully decentralized environment.

If the playing stake gets higher or if the dealer hosts multiple tables then in that scenario as per this logic the dealer has to maintain 100x BB of the tables which he operates and for which at any given time the dealer nodes has to accumulate good amount of CHIPS and in that sense more demand is created.

sg777 avatar Mar 15 '21 15:03 sg777

Awesome! That seems like a good option then.

Yeah, exactly. The more tables, the more CHIPS dealers as a whole are required to hold.

100xBB holding requirement would put a theoretical limit of a 210k CHIPS BB table limit, because the dealer would be required to hold 21 million CHIPS. I don't see this being an issue, because the price of CHIPS would continue to increase the more high stakes tables are in play, or the more tables in general are in play. This would be because of the reduction in available trading supply, because the dealers are holding greater and greater volume of coins, the more tables there are.

We mustn't forget that people are able to play with satoshis as well, so even if the price of CHIPS was to get to $100k USD ($2.1 Trillion Marketcap), people would still be playing with amounts of $0.001 USD.

NutellaLicka avatar Mar 15 '21 20:03 NutellaLicka