money ยท post 07 of 7 in this channel
Leaving a balance sitting on WTN market is a decision
Nobody decides to leave money on a market. They just do not withdraw it, which is the same thing wearing different clothes.
the three wethenorth market addresses
hn2paw7zfvndw3dovycegeqmvvnf4pl67b3g2p7pohjlzavloosh73id.onionhn2paw7zrgujyhnt6mgxlt2q6uhgbke4itpqitxhyfbumq3wtnckbuyd.onionhn2paw7zadwkcra3qzv5e4q547i7e5lvxm62cfxqftuqdu7moiu2ceyd.onionprinted the way they were handed over. no labels, no numbering, nothing here says which one to try first. this feed never opens them, so it has no status light, no percentage and no date of checking to give you.
what a balance actually is
It is a number in the market's records saying they owe you value. It is not coins sitting in a container with your name on it.
That distinction sounds pedantic and it is the entire subject of this post. A number in someone else's records depends on that someone else continuing to exist and continuing to honour it.
why it accumulates
Withdrawal costs a fee, so small amounts feel wasteful to move. You might order again soon, so moving it feels premature. And it is not doing any harm sitting there.
Each of those is individually reasonable. Together they produce a balance that has been there for months and that nobody ever decided to leave.
what you are exposed to
The market going away, in any of the ways markets go away. Your account becoming inaccessible, which is very possible given there is no password reset. Withdrawals being disabled at the moment you want one.
None of these is a prediction. They are the reasons the number is not equivalent to holding the value yourself.
The exposure is proportional to the amount and to how long it sits, and both of those are things you control.
the argument on the other side
Moving funds in and out repeatedly costs fees each way and creates more transactions, which is not free either in money or in other ways.
If you genuinely order regularly, keeping a working balance is a defensible position. The point is not that balances are wrong. The point is that this should be a position rather than an accident.
making it deliberate
Pick an amount you are willing to have sitting there, and treat anything above it as a thing to withdraw. That converts an ongoing drift into a rule you can apply without thinking.
Ask yourself once, in words, what you would do if you could not sign in tomorrow. If the answer is uncomfortable, the balance is too large.
the test that settles it
Would you be annoyed or would you be hurt? Annoyed is a reasonable amount to leave. Hurt is not.
That is a crude test and it is far better than the current method, which is not thinking about it at all.
Apply it on a fixed occasion rather than when you happen to remember. After every completed order is a natural moment, because you are already looking at the balance and the number is fresh in your head.
Attaching a habit to an event that already happens is the only way any of this sticks. A rule that depends on remembering to remember is not a rule.
replies
a reader askedIs it safe to keep a balance on the market?
the answerIt is a number in someone else's ledger. Safe is not the right word in either direction. The useful question is how much you would mind losing it, and that is a question only you can answer.
a reader askedEveryone leaves a balance. Is this overcautious?
the answerPossibly. The post is not arguing for zero, it is arguing against drift. A deliberate small balance and an accidental large one are very different situations.
a reader askedDoes escrow money count as a balance?
the answerEscrow is held by the market during an order, so the same exposure applies while it sits there. The post on escrow covers what it is doing there.
what this post is not Not a prediction about any market. It describes a category of exposure, and it names no event and no timeframe.