pietjepuk88

I thought the ECMWF models were (and always have been) global?

Locks are fun! (Can you tell I'm Dutch? ;) )

I think the main reason is that the (big!) ships just don't have room to pass each other anywhere other than on Gatun lake. They can't pass in the Gaillard cut, and not really in the approach harbors either. So it's one way traffic basically.

Also, anything taking the old locks out of operation for a few weeks/months is basically a no-go. That's just too costly.

As a side note, do keep in mind that water is already "saved" a little by going up in a convoy. With the three lock chambers, you get to reuse the same water three times. Not exactly true of course because convoys start and end, but you get the idea.

The thing that complicates the use of the water saving basins, is that they tend to make the salt intrusion into the lake a lot worse [0]. So to limit the salt intrusion (through the new locks), they have to _not_ use the water saving basins, or flush the locks every now and then using a lot of fresh water from Gatun lake.

This was (and is) not as much an issue with the old locks, as passage of ships there is ridiculously fast with the use of mules. With the new locks, it's mostly tug boats, and substantially bigger/slower ships obviously.

[0] Mostly on the Agua Clara side. The Cocoli side is generally fine, as the salt wedge doesn't reach the lake. Drinking/irrigation water intakes there probably have to be (or have been) moved though.

> > The ability to redeem LUSD for ETH at face value (i.e. 1 LUSD for $1 of ETH) [...] create a price floor

That is not entirely true though; it costs money to redeem LUSD for ETH. Earlier today it was 2%, so not particularly cheap. That would put the floor at 0.98 at least momentarily.

> You can take an interest free loan out against your Ethereum

Well, you do have to pay to take out a loan. Closing a loan is free, and redeeming LUSD for ETH (if it's not your loan) costs _at least_ 0.5%. And being liquidated costs you money (10%?) as well I guess.

> What happens if many people do that and never repay the loan?

Nothing? What do you think is supposed to happen?

> you are suddenly dealing with real like risk that cannot be ignored.

The only risk I know of is a cascade. If a trove drops below 110% because the ETH price drops, and someone liquidates the trove and gets the ETH at a 10% discount, and then _sells_ the ETH, the price drops even more causing other troves to be liquidated, etc.

> I shall refer you to my first post up there!

No, that's what _you_ think the reason is or should be. I'm asking what the reason (or answer) is that the _SEC_ gives in the application process.

> The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities, and you categorically cannot operate unregistered security schemes. The SEC is saying that these things must be registered, and until/unless they are registered they must stop.

My question was about the registration. If you _want_ to register, and the SEC replies with "<silence>", what are you supposed to do? Or if you ask if you should register, and get met with silence. I don't disagree with your assessment of "The SEC is saying that these schemes are securities", but instead of answering the question upfront they seem to prefer to punish/fine after the fact. Worst of all, they ban Kraken from ever offering any staking services in the future, even _if_ there is/will be a legal way to do it.

I _understand_ Gary's SEC's stance of keeping everything deliberately vague that way, because it gives him a lot of power to punish and discriminate on a one-off basis. I agree with Peirce (and CFTC's Pham) that's it's a bad and very lazy way to "regulate" (air quotes) though.

But what _is_ the reason they can't get through the pipeline (and that you think is a "very good" one)? Isn't just the SEC saying "We don't feel like answering your request. Continue as you see fit, but we can't promise we won't come after you for whatever reason"?

I'm not sure what you mean by "until when?".

> do you think they wont start forcing the needle?

The article is about _fining_ people, i.e. negative monetary incentives. Your reply outlined a bunch of positive monetary incentives. There's probably enough research out there which of the two works better (negative or positive), so I won't get into that. I will say that I think it's quite a stretch to say that either is a step-up to "forcing a needle in you", and that I find it a bit disingenuous to imply that this slippery-slope argument only applies to negative monetary incentives.

> they shouldn't be forced

I was under the impression that you'd just get fined if you don't get your shot. It's not like they are going to take you prisoner and stick a needle in you.