On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 08:44, Elliott Hird <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 19 Nov 2008, at 15:36, Roger Hicks wrote: > >> Just because the PBA has self-adjusting rates doesn't make them right. > > It makes them righter, in general, instead of arbitrarily set. > >> Take a look at my recent deposit of PV, for an example. > > You misunderstand: the point is that the PBA is structured so that when > the rates are wrong, they get corrected. This is done by offering nice > rewards when the rates are wrong, and so it has been doing well. The PV > was a rare extreme case of this. > Don't worry, I get it. The PBA's self adjusting rates are a good thing, and your chosen implementation of them does seem to work well in a large number of cases. I admit I was planning self-adjusting rates for the RBOA before you created the PBA, I just hadn't devised a good method of making them work. However, with that being said it still doesn't mean that the PBA's rates are inherently more accurate than the RBOA's. The PBA rates vastly reflect recent market trends, but tend to fail at modeling long-term value of assets. Because of their self-adjusting nature they can easily be skewed (for example, if the CFJ in question were decided on PBA rates, it would be a simple matter for anyone to artificially inflate or deflate those rates prior to the judgment going into effect). The RBOA's rates on the other hand tend to reflect a more stable long-term asset value.
BobTHJ
