You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: Campaign to get SBD "unlisted" from Upbit/Bittrex/Poloniex
SBD’s max value has never been pegged. I also see a lot of emotional rants but little arguments. The only (sort of) argument I have seen there was: "it will destroy service economy". Also why do you think that the less exchanges trading SBD the less opportunity for pumps? What is the logic behind that?
SBD as far as I understand it was designed to have a hard, exchangeability based, downward peg but a much softer, printing-based upward pegging mechanism. The later has failed miserably.
The more platform external speculative capital SBD is exposed to, the more likely it is for SBD to end up pumped way above the $1,- mark. Every additional bigger exchange ads to the exposure to the wims of the market.
No there is no softer pegging. When there is no Steem to back SBD it firstly slows and then stops printing (which is what happened). That by no means is a "value peg". SBD is only pegged from the bottom. The topic is opened up for discussion but you would need to bring some proofs instead of "failing rants". Why would it fail miserably? It feels like you’re coming to conclusions way to fast without considering all the variables. Why would you do it :)?
I think that your line of thoughts regarding this topic is incorrect. The more exchanges the bigger arbitrage possibilities. See how it (if it isn’t the movement of the WHOLE crypto market) always is one stock that shuts down deposits and suddenly the SBD is trading for moon values. If the trading was centralized on handful of stocks, this behaviour would cause MUCH BIGGER value spikes. Enlistment of any given crypto is usually triggering only very short-lived pump.