JordanLee | 2015-02-26 21:43:30 UTC | #1 Motion hash to place in your Nu client: **ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2** When our network began, we had a way to increase the NuBit supply at the will of shareholders. We then decided to add a way to decrease the NuBit supply at the expense of increasing the NuShare supply (due in the 0.6.0 release). It should not be surprising then, that a mechanism for reducing the NuShare supply would also be introduced, to complete our flexible supply of both shares and currency. Specifically, I am proposing that in most cases, instead of distributing dividends, proceeds from the sale of NuBits be used to purchase NuShares in the open market, which are then burned. This is commonly done with equities and is known as a share buyback. Due to low liquidity in the NuShare market, we can expect such activity will have a marked positive effect on the NuShare price. This high NuShare price will enhance our ability to sell NuShares later when we are in the opposite part of our economic cycle and need to support the NuBit price. Therefore, we will have two complimentary mechanisms which are the exact inverse of one another: 1. When NuBit demand is low, NuShares will be created and sold while NuBits will be purchased with the proceeds and burned. NuShare supply increases as NuBit supply decreases. This depresses the NuShare price as it supports the NuBit price to the pegged level. 2. When NuBit demand is high, NuBits will be created and sold while NuShares will be purchased with the proceeds and burned. NuBit supply increases as NuShare supply decreases. This inflates the NuShare price as it suppresses the NuBit price to the pegged level. Fortunately, no protocol or even client changes are needed to do this beyond what is already approved by shareholders and scheduled for our 0.6.0 release. Whether dividends are distributed in addition to share buybacks being done will be up to shareholders to decide on an ongoing basis. Shareholders can also decide what proportion of NuBit sale proceeds go to dividends and what proportion go to share buyback by how they pass custodial grants. In order to move to the model described above, which is decentralized and eliminates counterparty risk to NuShare and NuBit holders, the LPC operations of KTm and Jamie must be wound down. Their service was of great value at the launch of NuBits, but it is time for Nu to mature into the decentralized, counterparty risk system it was originally envisioned as. Similarly, it is important that the undistributed NuShares I possess (currently nearly 300 million) either be distributed or burned. Once these actions are taken we can say that Nu is free of any single points of failure or catastrophe: decentralized, free of counterparty risk, robust and resilient. Ending the LPC service of KTm and Jamie is also the key to unleashing share buybacks and dividends. Right now they are holding the proceeds of their NuBit sales as reserves. Transitioning to our zero reserve model is synonymous with ending the LPC operations of KTm and Jamie. When this transition is complete, proceeds of NuBit sales will not be held at all. Rather, NuShare holders will be immediately rewarded when those proceeds are used for NuShare buyback and burn or dividend distribution. In order to unlock the full benefits of share buyback and dividends, shareholders need to make a full commitment to paying a transparent and upfront cost for liquidity from LPCs providing their own funds. As I've said before, this feels kind of like paying health insurance premiums, but allows you to accurately predict the costs that will be incurred. While KTm and Jamie continue operations, we only know that our cost for their service will be between their modest 2% fee and 2 million NBT, if shareholders lost control of the funds somehow. Nu cannot afford a 2 million NBT cost at this point in its development. We can and ought to eliminate the possibility of this potential catastrophe quickly by purchasing insurance, so to speak. The following is the finalized motion intended to permit Nu to operate in the manner described above: Motion RIPEMD160 hash: **ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2**

=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash starts with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Kiara Tamm and Jamie Miller must cease operations completely within
90 days. Within 5 days of passage of this motion, 25% of the shareholder
funds in their possession should be burned as NuBits. 33% of the
remaining funds should be burned as NuBits between 25 days and 30 days
after passage. 50% of remaining funds should be burned as NuBits between
55 days and 60 days after passage. All remaining funds should be burned
as NuBits between 85 and 90 days after passage. They should receive
their pre-determined commission on funds actually used to provide
liquidity, not their total grant amount. This motion amends or nullifies
previous agreements between shareholders and KTm and Jamie as required
to comply with this motion.


Within 60 days after the protocol is altered to permit custodial
grants of NuShares, Jordan Lee must burn all undistributed NuShares.
Within 30 days after this motion is passed Jordan Lee must burn all
NuBits held on behalf of shareholders in excess of 250,000 NuBits.


Details of burning which apply to Jamie Miller, Kiara Tamm and Jordan Lee:
Burning is to be done by publicly announcing the address that corresponds to
the spendable outputs to be burnt. Burning should be accomplished by
designating the spendable outputs as transaction fees. We have a burn
RPC scheduled for development that will make this simple. If that is not
developed by the time burning is required (a special build not yet
released could be used), one of our core developers will assist in
constructing a raw transaction to accomplish the burning. This way, the
burning can be verified by anyone at anytime who possesses the
blockchain or access to it via a block explorer.


=##=##=##=##=##=## Motion hash ends with this line ##=##=##=##=##=##=

Verify. Use everything between including the <motionhash></motionhash> tags.

Good preparations will need to be made to see the network in good health after this motion is fully executed. New LPCs will need to be funded and cultivated. The implementation of a liquidity pool is one particularly inclusive way to do this. Being an LPC requires ownership of significant liquid funds that can be put at high risk, it requires the skills and time to run NuBot, as well as a good understand of trading and the nature of Nu liquidity operations. A liquidity pool would separate these requirements: A pool operator needs the skill and time to run NuBot and the understanding of liquidity operations, but they do not need to have any funds. Individual users of the pool only need a tiny sum of liquidity they can put at high risk, because users' funds are pooled together to create a significant quantity in aggregate. Individuals pool users don't need any special knowledge and it won't require any of their time on an ongoing basis. The potential profits for pool operators and individual pool users are huge at the present time. Based on recently passed LPC proposals, we can see that 10% return per month can be had. We shouldn't wait for pools to emerge and fail to elect standard LPCs. As the Nu network matures, I expect we will see a mixture of LPC pools and LPCs providing their own funding. I would rather see the network supported by 100,000 NBT of liquidity by LPCs providing their own funds than 400,000 NBT of liquidity by LPCs using shareholder funds like KTm and Jamie. Once the transition is complete we will have two main types of LPCs, as mentioned in the whitepaper: single side (called sell side in the whitepaper, but this is being modified to include granted NSR that is used to apply buy side pressure on NuBits) and dual side LPCs. Single side LPCs come in two sub-types: (1) those that have been granted NuBits to apply sell side pressure and NSR buyback (and burn) or dividends, and (2) those that have been granted NuShares which they can sell to apply buy side pressure and NuBit burn. Dual side LPCs are the more common type that liquidity pools will be which provide both buy and sell side liquidity in order to create a buffer zone of liquidity for the peg. The purpose of single side LPCs, on the other hand, is to balance the buffer zone created by the dual side LPCs. Proper preparations for the burning of undistributed NuShares will be the granting of a small percentage of outstanding NuShares (perhaps two or three percent) to a multisig NuShare address. This will allow the signers to agree to sell the NSR quickly to purchase NBT to support the peg when buy side liquidity is low. The idea is to have no more NSR than could be possibly needed for sale in a two week period. If additional NuShares are needed for sale beyond a two week period, they can be created in a new NSR custodial grant. Rather than creating a large fund for future development as originally planned, development will be funded with NuBits on an ongoing basis. If the emission of these NuBits creates too much selling pressure, the selling pressure will be counteracted by an NSR grant and an NBT burn. Our development savings are held in our market cap. Interest rates may still be used a peg support mechanism. However, it is possible that NSR grants combined with NBT burning will become the more important mechanism. If this plan is implemented NuShares will be even more volatile than they are now. It makes sense that they would be, because we are basically diverting the volatility the market naturally wants to impose on NuBits to NuShares. NuShares will be a speculator's delight. They should never approach zero so long as the network purpose of a pegged currency that is is used continues to be served. I welcome your comments and suggestions for amending the motion as it is currently a draft. I will take care to use the new template for motions when this is finalized. ------------------------- Cybnate | 2015-02-15 08:18:40 UTC | #2 I'm slightly concerned about the timing given the limited number of LPCs, the lack of existing liquidity pools and/or the skillsets required to operate as an LPC. However I agree that the artificial LPC type KTm and Jamie have been running is also not desirable as it interferes with the market for LPCs. It is a bit of a leap of faith, hoping that we would get more LPC to defend the peg. We should be able to do this with the burning and creating of NuBits however I have no overview of the total NuBits in the hands of users and the swings in buy and sell pressure in the last few months. It would be great to have a better view of that, so we can have an idea how much liquidity is required based on historic statistics. Practically we won't burn and create NuBits on a daily bases so we need a liquidity pool to cover at least a few weeks of trading. Until there is more aggregated data available on the NuBits trading in the last few months I'm on the fence regarding the timing of this proposed motion. ------------------------- zoro | 2015-02-15 11:33:49 UTC | #3 the resent issues with some exchanges lately is bad for LPCs. The risk seems to be high maintening funds in exchanges! ------------------------- desrever | 2015-02-15 12:26:18 UTC | #4 There is a lot to digest before I can comment properly. It looks promising. I would add a checkpoint that current liquidity operation should NOT be ceased untill a proper replacement(s) is found, funded and lined up to support NBT peg in open markets. ------------------------- creon | 2015-02-15 12:30:41 UTC | #5 [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] Specifically, I am proposing that in most cases, instead of distributing dividends, proceeds from the sale of NuBits be used to purchase NuShares in the open market, which are then burned. [/quote] I always thought it is important that the dividends are distributed using a currency which is external to the Nu network ... With this motion its more that NSR and NBT have a shared/coupled market cap which gets rebalanced through motions. I just hope that the lack of liquidity in the NSR market will not call manipulators on the plan when we decide to perform such big trades. What I am missing now is a corresponding mechanism that is complementary to parking :wink: [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] The implementation of a liquidity pool is one particularly inclusive way to do this. Being an LPC requires ownership of significant liquid funds that can be put at high risk, it requires the skills and time to run NuBot, as well as a good understand of trading and the nature of Nu liquidity operations. [/quote] I posted a short code snipped in [another thread][1] how something like this could be done very easily. After giving it some more thought though, I think there are many legal issues that come into play when operating with other people's money. So the bot operator would probably still have the full responsibility when the funds are lost. So a liquidity pool bot operator would not just need some technical skills but also some legal advice and a suitable insurance. This is already out of scope for amateurs. NuBots must be able to cooperate! In my opinion this is the most interesting approach to get more LPCs, and to really build a decentralized way to provide liquidity. Running NuBot isn't harder than running a miner, and many people are able to do that. Targeting many people with low to moderate funds will provide a stable liquidity floor which won't fluctuate as much as with a few very rich custodians. [1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/decentralized-liquidity-without-counterparty-risk-not-yet-implemented/1246/13?u=creon ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-15 19:43:45 UTC | #6 While I had made a final decision to propose this motion before the failures at Bter and Excoin, the recent events demonstrate the urgency of the matter. Honestly, the Bter failure makes me inclined to move the timelines in the motion so they occur more quickly. Our solution will still work with thin on exchange liquidity (although it increases the risk of momentary swings in the peg). However, loss of shareholder funds can be catastrophic if the amounts are great. New LPCs may not be so excited about putting their own funds at risk in light of recent events. Its clear the best response is to do everything we can to provide liquidity without exposing the liquidity providers to exchange default risk. That means most LPC funds need to reside on tier 3, off exchange. Perhaps it is time to place tier 3 automation at the top of the NuBot roadmap. We could start with automating exchange deposits and visit the issue of automated exchange withdrawals afterwards. @desrever, @benjyz, @woolly_sammoth and @pennybreaker: what do you think of making tier 3 automation of exchange deposits the top development priority for NuBot? Let's examine what a 100,000 NBT Bter liquidity operation would look like by adding tier 3 automation (for exchange deposits): Perhaps 5,000 would be placed on each side (buy and sell) in tier 1. So 10,000 NBT total is on the order book and available for immediate exchange. Perhaps another 20,000 NBT is available in tier 2. As an order is filled and depletes tier 1 liquidity, it only takes several seconds to move liquidity funds from tier 2 to the order book and tier 1, as tier 2 is off order book and on exchange. As tier 2 amounts drop below 10,000 on each side, NuBot deposits funds on the exchange from connected Bitcoin and Nu daemons. In our scenario, only 30,000 NBT of value is exposed to exchange default risk, while 70,000 NBT would be safe. LPC proposals would specify how much liquidity would be provided in each tier. There is no reason an LPC proposal couldn't be very conservative in managing exchange risk by placing 5% of funds in tier 1, 5% of funds in tier 2 and 90% of funds in the off exchange tier 3. That would still provide good liquidity. Tier 3 liquidity can be promoted to tier 2 in between 6 and 60 minutes, depending on the currency and exchange policy regarding confirmations. Occasionally losing tier 1 liquidity for a specific LPC or exchange for a matter of minutes is only a minor problem. Most of this post may seem off topic, but it relates to the question of how we will transition to self funded LPCs. An important part of that is reducing exchange default risk. Edit: I should clarify that while automated withdrawals can be addressed later, the initial tier 3 NuBot implementation must permit manual withdrawals. This way LPCs can manually move funds from tier 2 to tier 3 when tier 2 get too large on one side. ------------------------- masterOfDisaster | 2015-02-16 07:38:35 UTC | #7 [quote="Cybnate, post:2, topic:1466"] I'm slightly concerned about the timing given the limited number of LPCs, the lack of existing liquidity pools and/or the skillsets required to operate as an LPC. However I agree that the artificial LPC type KTm and Jamie have been running is also not desirable as it interferes with the market for LPCs. [/quote] The timing would never be fine for something like that. It's a double-edged sword. On the one hand if there's no end of @KTm's and @jmiller's LPC foreseeable the need to support LPCs might just not be big enough. Having @KTm and @jmiller providing liquidity is very convenient - and risky for NuNet as we see these days. On the other hand I agree that there are some things that need to be done until operating a NuBot is close to a no-brainer. We need to be aware that the amount of potential LPCs is still quite limited at the moment. Ideally each NSR holder should be willing and able to run a NuBot - the fees will reflect the recent experience with exchanges defaulting. I'd really love to have the Peerbox equivalent for running a NuBot. Download the image, do basic configuration tasks like choose the exchange, enter an email address that receives regular updates on the NuBot status, provide the wallet with funds and give it a go. These are things that I'd like to see on the agenda before I could feel fine with creating pressure by a motion to end LPC operations of @KTm and @jmiller. What if passing the open source motion makes exchanges think about providing liquidity, taking the role of an LPC? ------------------------- zoro | 2015-02-16 11:39:42 UTC | #8 i think exchanges can be great LPCs even without asking of any reward. just the fees would be enough ;) moreover exchanges can take all the risk of their businesses by balancing their tiers and using multisig as they see fit, i believe better than an external bot can ever handle! it is pitty to see nubit system to fail due to exchanges' incompedence! ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-16 15:00:14 UTC | #9 [quote="zoro, post:8, topic:1466"] it is pitty to see nubit system to fail due to exchanges' incompedence! [/quote] I would rephrase by saying: "it would be a pity" :smile: edit: typo ------------------------- tomjoad | 2015-02-16 20:27:58 UTC | #10 I've read through this motion a few times and support it. Share buy-backs are a clever way to increase the market cap of NSR and consolidate voting power in the hands of those who view Nu as a long-term DAO and not a short-term speculative bet. I hope the creation of liquidity pools emerges soon. Any prospective LPC can increase their own profit by accepting and managing smaller contributions. For example, a current LPC proposal might look like this: Liquidity provided: 25,000 NBT Fee asked for: 2,500 NBT (10%) Duration: 60 days A prospective LPC who puts out a call for ten small contributors to join him (who are each willing to put in 2,000 NBT) can now earn this: Individual liquidity provided: 25,000 NBT Fee asked for: 2,500 NBT (10%) Group liquidity provided: 20,000 NBT Fee asked for: 2,000 NBT (10%). Of this 2,000 NBT, 600 NBT will be a management fee for the LPC. The LPC now earns 3,100 NBT on his 25,000 NBT liquidity injection for no additional risk, just additional work making the payments to his pool members. The small contributors are able to earn a smaller but sizable return without needing to learn how to use NuBot. Everyone wins in this scenario. I expect open-source automated solutions are eventually possible for these liquidity group managers. ------------------------- creon | 2015-02-16 21:18:03 UTC | #11 Well as shown in my previous post this can be automated in 50 lines of Python but as mentioned above the pool operator will be legally on very thin ice if something goes wrong. Its something else if people here on the forum coordinate to make a shared proposal, but then the shareholders don't even need to know how exactly the funding was obtained. ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-17 01:00:37 UTC | #12 I like the simplicity of the duality played by NuBit/NuShare to control the supply of NuBit. It decreases at the same time the importance of parking, which is a bit more complicated. In my understanding, the system envisioned here will be much more decentralized than the current state because shareholders will be able to elect NSR custodians who will be burning the shares on a multi-sig basis, whereas now shareholders' money is held by only 3 people. Another thing is that with the decreasing importance of dividends distribution alluded to, most of the value of NSR will be derived by their rarity, not their associated dividends, making NSR more similar to bitcoin than originaly designed, from my perspective. ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-02-18 14:24:31 UTC | #13 I support that motion! ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-19 23:06:09 UTC | #14 [quote="desrever, post:4, topic:1466"] I would add a checkpoint that current liquidity operation should NOT be ceased untill a proper replacement(s) is found, funded and lined up to support NBT peg in open markets. [/quote] My position has always been that shareholders need to pay whatever price the market demands for proper LPC operations, although the quantity of liquidity can be relatively small if the price is relatively high. There have been a lot of LPCs rejected, apparently because shareholders thought what KTm and Jamie were doing was cheaper, which has now been conclusively proven false. The operations of KTm and Jamie have proven to be more expensive than any other LPC proposal that has been made. More important than the fact that their operations have been the most expensive is that the cost of their operations are completely unpredictable. The cost is anywhere between their commission of 2% (40,000 NBT) and 2 million NBT. To take a risk of incurring a 2 million NBT loss that would almost certainly break the peg is terribly irresponsible when shareholders could instead buy what is essentially an insurance product that makes the price of liquidity perfectly transparent and predictable. Therefore, while I strongly advocate for shareholders passing grant proposals of proper non-shareholder funded LPCs right now, this motion is designed to essentially force shareholders to do the fiscally responsible thing as the timeline matures and stop gambling the fate of the network on the faithfulness of KTm, Jamie and the exchanges they use. I don't believe shareholders will choose to reject all LPCs as the liquidity offered by KTm and Jamie winds down. ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-02-19 23:35:06 UTC | #15 [quote="JordanLee, post:14, topic:1466"] Therefore, while I strongly advocate for shareholders passing grant proposals of proper non-shareholder funded LPCs right now, this motion is designed to essentially force shareholders to do the fiscally responsible thing as the timeline matures and stop gambling the fate of the network on the faithfulness of KTm, Jamie and the exchanges they use. I don't believe shareholders will choose to reject all LPCs as the liquidity offered by KTm and Jamie winds down. [/quote] Absolutely ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-20 00:20:29 UTC | #16 I sent a PM to @assistant where the body was the motion content prepended with *motion hash*. I then copied and pasted the resulting reply from the assistant in to my original post. The formatting does look slightly different here than in the PM, so I think some hidden characters were lost or added in the course of that copy, paste and save edit. I checked it at http://www.online-convert.com and indeed I get a different hash. So, I am just going to calculate the hash with the website above. You can verify it using the Tor or Firefox browsers. ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-20 00:34:51 UTC | #18 @tomjoad I had some difficulty getting the hash issued by the assistant to verify, so the actual hash is: 72f371610c7e8d3f3c34886635aac6fc1bc7a596 ------------------------- creon | 2015-02-20 00:49:41 UTC | #19 [quote="JordanLee, post:16, topic:1466"] I then copied and pasted the resulting reply from the assistant in to my original post. [/quote] You have to click on the small "verify" link on the bottom of the reply of the assistant bot and copy the html shown there back into the OP. Hashing the part in the motionhash tags should give the right hash. EDIT: it also enables us to easily view this html code and to verify the hash without the forum software. ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-20 01:08:07 UTC | #21 [quote="creon, post:19, topic:1466"] You have to click on the small "verify" link on the bottom of the reply of the assistant bot and copy the html shown there back into the OP. Hashing the part in the motionhash tags should give the right hash. [/quote] I tried that but got a hash of d79414279ae22fb217f2b654fb434ad1cf155c8b at quickhash.com instead of the expected value of ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2. So, I'm going back to manual method and the 72f371610c7e8d3f3c34886635aac6fc1bc7a596 hash. ------------------------- creon | 2015-02-20 01:32:34 UTC | #22 That is sad, I am not able to verify this hash due to the well known reasons. @woolly_sammoth implemented this unique html representation so others can verify it easily on any platform. Are you sure that you are hashing the whole motionhash block including the opening and closing tags? Furthermore we are not able to click the verify link in the OP because it links to a private page. I had the same issue and @woolly_sammoth said that it has to be changed manually right now: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/proposal-small-dual-side-liquidity-for-currently-uncovered-pair/1268/20 EDIT: @JordanLee Or maybe post a raw file on github or pastebin. The newlines in the text above don't show up when quoting it, so copying it will result in many different results on different browsers and operating systems. ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-20 01:38:11 UTC | #23 Sorry for all the hassle and back and forth. I had mistakenly read "Use everything between including the tags." as "Use everything between the tags." So, now it is working as @woolly_sammoth intended. Thanks. ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2 is my final answer. ------------------------- creon | 2015-02-20 01:43:04 UTC | #24 Thanks, the only remaining problem is that the verify link is not accessible to us. I don't know how to create a raw page here in the forum and to make it publicly available. @woolly_sammoth did it for me in my case. So right now we still cannot verify the hash but I am sure everything is fine and that the "verify" link will be updated soon. ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-20 02:31:16 UTC | #25 I d like to know about the ratio of liquidity provided by non-shareholder funded LPCs 1) over liquidity provided by shareholder funded LPCs 2) currently, before voting. 2) would be gradually fading away so it would give shareholders some time margin to increase 1) after pasage but I just want to make sure that we would have enough margin. For example, if the ratio is too small, we should first increase 1) before passing the motion, I think. ------------------------- woolly_sammoth | 2015-02-20 06:58:19 UTC | #26 Morning. Sorry for the confusion. I have edited the 'verify' link in the OP to point to the actual raw text so verification can take place. I still need to come up with an elegant way around this issue. As you can imagine it has slipped down the list of priorities somewhat I recent days. ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-20 10:43:36 UTC | #27 Hash verified. [ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2] EDIT: added actual hash. ------------------------- creon | 2015-02-20 09:43:48 UTC | #28 hash ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2 verified. ------------------------- masterOfDisaster | 2015-02-20 22:11:21 UTC | #29 [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] I would rather see the network supported by 100,000 NBT of liquidity by LPCs providing their own funds than 400,000 NBT of liquidity by LPCs using shareholder funds like KTm and Jamie. [/quote] Maybe it's just because I got the flu and have some temperature, but I stumbled upon a question I couldn't find an answer myself: if NuNet goes zero reserve and KTm and Jamie end their operations how exactly are new NBT brought into circulation? I mean, as the LPC provide liquidity with their own funds and need to buy NBT in the first instance in order to place NBT sell orders, where do they buy them? Who sells them? As zero reserve is the goal, NuNet can't take compensation for handing out the NBT. How to bring new NBT into circulation? Sell them for USD, buy NSR with the USD and burn them? I think I need to delete this post at some later point when the fever has gone. But for now I have to ask this nonsense; pardon my (hopefully only temporarily experienced) ignorance. ------------------------- tomjoad | 2015-02-20 22:25:30 UTC | #30 [quote="masterOfDisaster, post:29, topic:1466"] if NuNet goes zero reserve and KTm and Jamie end their operations how exactly are new NBT brought into circulation? [/quote] Remember there is a difference between [Liquidity Provider Custodians][1] and [Sell Side Custodians][2] as defined by the white paper. LPCs are compensated for allowing greater demand variability in NuBits. If aggregate demand for NuBits is 100 NBT per day, variability might mean some days have 97 NBT of demand, and others have 103 NBT. Shareholders compensate LPCs for providing that 3 NBT in demand variability insurance. In this simplified example, LPCs would ideally be providing 5-6 NBT of insurance in that case so that a spike in demand wouldn't break the peg. Relevant: > The trading bot should automatically and immediately place these 1,000,000 NBT for sale at a price of 1.002 USD (one USD + a 0.2% transaction fee). If this order fills, then the bot should use the USD proceeds to immediately place a buy order for NBT at 0.998 USD. All funds should be continually on order and the LP custodian's funds should not be depleted by transaction fees. Sell side custodians sell new NuBits above LPC prices. Relevant: > Using our formula above, the trading bot would place a sell order for 10,000,000 NBT at a price of 1.0021. The reason it should be 1.0021 instead of 1.002 is that we want dual side sell orders to be executed first, so their funds can be returned to providing buy side liquidity. The profits from the sale of those NuBits can be used for any purpose shareholders see fit - dividends, share buybacks, or development work. [1]: https://nubits.com/about/white-paper#use-case-for-dual-side [2]: https://nubits.com/about/white-paper#use-case-for-sell-side ------------------------- masterOfDisaster | 2015-02-20 22:42:41 UTC | #31 Thank you for patiently explaining what I wasn't able to understand. I digged in the whitepaper, but stopped a chapter too early as it seems. Although I made a fool of myself I won't delete my post for it may serve people who are new to NuNet. And now I'm really off to bed, trying to get rid of the fever. ------------------------- tomjoad | 2015-02-20 22:53:17 UTC | #32 I think it's very likely a common question, thank you for bringing it up! Feel better. ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-02-21 02:30:18 UTC | #33 Jordan, This is a very good plan. Thank you for taking the time to put this together. Jamie ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-21 03:41:28 UTC | #34 With discussion about @KTm and @jmiller starting liquidity pools, I thought I should clarify that this motion only regards their use of shareholder funds received via custodial grant. It is not intended to prohibit operation of liquidity pools using private funds. I would like this motion to be passed and see @KTm and @jmiller run liquidity pools after its implementation using private funds. ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-21 06:33:46 UTC | #35 I still have a couple of questions to be answered before voting for this motion: [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] Within 60 days after the protocol is altered to permit custodial grants of NuShares [/quote] Compared to the expected time of this motion's passage, when the protocol is expected to be altered? Before or after this motion's passage? ---------- [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] Jordan Lee must burn all undistributed NuShares. [/quote] That means that if the [nsr's auction][1] is performed and successful, 200m nsr would remain and intended to be burnt. What is the purpose of this burning? To increase the unit price of NSR? ---------- [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] Within 30 days after this motion is passed Jordan Lee must burn all NuBits held on behalf of shareholders in excess of 250,000 NuBits. [/quote] How many NBTs are held currently by Jordan Lee? Overall, my understanding is that all the shareholders' money held by KT and JM, whether it is NBT or BTC/PPC will be burnt. However, after their operations cease, would some shareholder's fund (non NBT) in custody of Jordan Lee remain (I suppose at Tier4) that could be used to help maintain the peg just in case or this motion's passage would also imply the end of any use of Tier4 to maintain the peg as it is written below: [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:618"] Tier 4This liquidity can be provided by custodians not dedicated to liquidity operations. A present example are the proceeds of NuShare sales. They are intended for operational and development expenses, but can be used to support the critical function of liquidity provision as needed. When these funds are used for liquidity, they are exchanged from one type of asset to another, but are still available for their original purpose, such as development. These funds can be promoted to tier 3 in hours and the cost is exchange rate risk. [/quote] [1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/ending-counterparty-risk-now-and-holding-an-nsr-auction/1553 ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-02-21 12:07:41 UTC | #36 [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] In order to move to the model described above, which is decentralized and eliminates counterparty risk to NuShare and NuBit holders, the LPC operations of KTm and Jamie must be wound down. Their service was of great value at the launch of NuBits, but it is time for Nu to mature into the decentralized, counterparty risk system it was originally envisioned as. Similarly, it is important that the undistributed NuShares I possess (currently nearly 300 million) either be distributed or burned. Once these actions are taken we can say that Nu is free of any single points of failure or catastrophe: decentralized, free of counterparty risk, robust and resilient. Ending the LPC service of KTm and Jamie is also the key to unleashing share buybacks and dividends. Right now they are holding the proceeds of their NuBit sales as reserves. Transitioning to our zero reserve model is synonymous with ending the LPC operations of KTm and Jamie. When this transition is complete, proceeds of NuBit sales will not be held at all. Rather, NuShare holders will be immediately rewarded when those proceeds are used for NuShare buyback and burn or dividend distribution. In order to unlock the full benefits of share buyback and dividends, shareholders need to make a full commitment to paying a transparent and upfront cost for liquidity from LPCs providing their own funds. As I've said before, this feels kind of like paying health insurance premiums, but allows you to accurately predict the costs that will be incurred. While KTm and Jamie continue operations, we only know that our cost for their service will be between their modest 2% fee and 2 million NBT, if shareholders lost control of the funds somehow. Nu cannot afford a 2 million NBT cost at this point in its development. We can and ought to eliminate the possibility of this potential catastrophe quickly by purchasing insurance, so to speak. [/quote] Verified and voted ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-02-21 12:10:23 UTC | #37 > This motion amends or nullifies > previous agreements between shareholders and KTm and Jamie as required > to comply with this motion. Do we have to suppose that (the execution of) (certain) motions can be amended/nullified/modified (at any time) once passed? ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-02-21 12:19:05 UTC | #38 [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] If this plan is implemented NuShares will be even more volatile than they are now. It makes sense that they would be, because we are basically diverting the volatility the market naturally wants to impose on NuBits to NuShares. NuShares will be a speculator's delight. They should never approach zero so long as the network purpose of a pegged currency that is is used continues to be served. [/quote] Not really appealing for someone looking for a long-term growth stock ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-02-21 12:26:56 UTC | #39 I am quoting here, but to me it constitutes the gist of one of the pictures here: - The more LPCs, the more decentralized "Running NuBot isn't harder than running a miner, and many people are able to do that. Targeting many people with low to moderate funds will provide a stable liquidity floor which won't fluctuate as much as with a few very rich custodians." - "Ideally each NSR holder should be willing and able to run a NuBot" - "Exchanges can be great LPCs even without asking of any reward. just the fees would be enough" ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-22 05:53:03 UTC | #40 [quote="crypto_coiner, post:37, topic:1466"] Do we have to suppose that (the execution of) (certain) motions can be amended/nullified/modified (at any time) once passed? [/quote] You can pass motions that cancel previous motions. ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-23 02:44:01 UTC | #41 @assistant motion vote ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2 ------------------------- assistant | 2015-02-23 02:44:05 UTC | #42 Hi @cryptog Here are the details for the Motion Vote on ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2: ---------- ##[ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2][1] [1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-end-lpc-operations-of-ktm-jamie-and-nsr-sales-of-jordan **Blocks**: 1910 (``19.100000%``) **Share Days**: 582265211 (``17.901982%``) ----------

Motion hash to place in your Nu client:

ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2

When our network began, we had a way to increase the NuBit supply at the will of shareholders. We then decided to add a way to decrease the NuBit supply at the expense of increasing the NuShare supply (due in the 0.6.0 release). It should not be surprising then, that a mechanism for reducing the NuShare supply would also be introduced, to complete our flexible supply of both share

Read More

------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-23 03:23:09 UTC | #43 [quote="cryptog, post:35, topic:1466"] Compared to the expected time of this motion's passage, when the protocol is expected to be altered?Before or after this motion's passage? [/quote] The protocol switch date is unknown. I would be surprised if it happened in less than two months. [quote="cryptog, post:35, topic:1466"] What is the purpose of this burning? To increase the unit price of NSR? [/quote] To remove any question about what I will do with them. The increased certainty and the control that shareholders will have over the creation of NSR should increase the network's value. [quote="cryptog, post:35, topic:1466"] How many NBTs are held currently by Jordan Lee? [/quote] 536,000 + 5,000 currently at BTER [quote="cryptog, post:35, topic:1466"] would some shareholder's fund (non NBT) in custody of Jordan Lee remain (I suppose at Tier4) that could be used to help maintain the peg just in case or this motion's passage would also imply the end of any use of Tier4 to maintain the peg as it is written below: [/quote] Yes, non NBT funds would remain for tier 4 liquidity. Medium term, this should held jointly using multi-sig. If enough liquidity could be developed in the NSR market, tier 4 might only consist of NSR. ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-25 07:38:05 UTC | #44 I moved 3 posts to an existing topic: [Park Rate Voting](https://discuss.nubits.com/t/park-rate-voting/161) ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-26 09:25:07 UTC | #45 @assistant motion vote ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2 ------------------------- assistant | 2015-02-26 09:25:10 UTC | #46 Hi @cryptog Here are the details for the Motion Vote on ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2: ---------- ##[ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2][1] [1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/voting-motion-to-end-lpc-operations-of-ktm-jamie-and-nsr-sales-of-jordan **Blocks**: 4787 (``47.870000%``) **Share Days**: 1430582899 (``44.710345%``) ----------

Motion hash to place in your Nu client:

ed7b9fc65dc4e9d9acad61e528420c2690f599d2

When our network began, we had a way to increase the NuBit supply at the will of shareholders. We then decided to add a way to decrease the NuBit supply at the expense of increasing the NuShare supply (due in the 0.6.0 release). It should not be surprising then, that a mechanism for reducing the NuShare supply would also be introduced, to complete our flexible supply of both share

Read More

------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-26 09:52:54 UTC | #47 I am late but I wanted to make sure that even with the passage of this motion, we would still have some time margin to increase the number of lpcs. The end of operations of KTm and Jamie will be a gradual process. So their buy liquidity support will fade away gradually. In the worst case in which Nu has not increased the buy liquidity via private custodians, we would still have some liquidity present in some of the reserves held by JL at Tier4. Voted. ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-02-26 21:57:27 UTC | #48 This has passed. I will have more to say about steps that need to be taken for a smooth transition in liquidity operations over the next several months. In three months time we will be certain there will be no more exchange defaults on shareholder deposits, because there won't be any. For now I would encourage shareholders to quickly transition away from using Jamie and KTm's services. We can do that even faster than the motion stipulates if there are enough LPC proposals and shareholders pass them. It could take as little as two weeks if people stepped up quickly to provide alternatives. Such an outcome is worth a lot. I would be especially pleased to see liquidity pools form and LPC proposals that make use of off exchange funds in tier 3, even though that means movements between tier 3 and tier 2 would be handled manually for now. It is worth the trouble to protect from exchange defaults, as we have learned. As I have said elsewhere, it may make sense to have 5% in tier 1, 5% in tier 2 and 90% in tier 3 to provide excellent protection from exchange default. ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-02-27 02:35:49 UTC | #49 [quote="JordanLee, post:48, topic:1466"] it may make sense to have 5% in tier 1, 5% in tier 2 and 90% [/quote] I think this is must. Otherwise it is gonna be difficult to find new LPCs I believe. The new LPCs new to protect themselves. Hedging by purchasing derivatives is probably too complicated for the average LPC. Spreading the liquidity over Tiers1-2-3 is much simpler ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-03-05 05:38:25 UTC | #50 [quote="passed motion content, post:1, topic:1466"] Within 5 days of passage of this motion, 25% of the shareholder funds in their (@KTm And @jmiller) possession should be burned as NuBits. [/quote] It has been 7 days since the passage of this motion. It would be appropriate for @KTm and @jmiller to give a report on their implementation of the above terms. To accomplish burning at the present time raw transactions must be used. [Information in how to contruct them][1] is available. [Nu specific documentation][2] also outlines how to use raw transactions for multi sig addresses, which may be helpful. If you have questions about how to proceed, please as @sigmike, @erasmospunk or myself for assistance. I would advise burning a NuBit or two as a test before attempting to burn the entire amount. Please let everyone know what address(es) you will burn from in advance. [1]: https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Raw_Transactions [2]: http://docs.nubits.com/v1.0/docs/multi-sig-addresses ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-03-07 20:34:04 UTC | #51 [quote="JordanLee, post:50, topic:1466"] It has been 7 days since the passage of this motion. It would be appropriate for @KTm and @jmiller to give a report on their implementation of the above terms. [/quote] Sorry about the delay. I'm working on this today. @JordanLee I sent you a BM with a couple of questions about this process. Jamie ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-03-09 21:23:34 UTC | #52 A test burn of 5 NBT was sent to address BGzfoZHwjKXgbX7R5oPdG12QgFZV6tjpcB. By examining the [txid][1], you can see that 4.99 NBT was burned as fee. Funds that are still locked up on Bter will not be factored into this first 25% burn, as they are currently out of my control. Below is a breakdown of the funds that are currently under control: **Allcoin** BTC: 20.0033 (5822.1605 NBT) NBT: 6896.3579 **Bitspark** BTC: 10.8693 (3163.6184 NBT) NBT: 2175.8859 **Poloniex** BTC: 87.5209 (25473.8331 NBT) NBT: 25447.9761 **Off Exchange** BTC: 32.0023 (9314.5894 NBT) NBT: 150503.9 The exchange rate used is $291.06, which came from Bitcoinaverage.com on March 9, 2015 21:04 UTC. **Total funds in NBT:** 228798.3213 25% = 57199.5803 If someone could please look at this breakdown and verify that there are no obvious errors in calculation, I will proceed with the burn of **57199.5803 NBT** to this address: **BMdEGVo9oSmsFHDKiL39CYhaSD3AmCv4s4** Jamie [1]: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/ef322565a97f6ad412278c4c4f1eab3c5a8a57ed8fefbedd65b23f9d906bd324 Edit 3/9/15 21:22 UTC: I found an error in the amounts reported for Bitspark, so I recalculated everything using the current BTC exchange rate. ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-03-09 21:27:33 UTC | #53 Bump. Note that an error was found in the numbers posted above which has been corrected and updated to reflect the current BTC exchange rate. This is quite a lot of NBT to burn. I would appreciate a nod of approval from at least one shareholder before I proceed. ------------------------- woolly_sammoth | 2015-03-09 21:37:08 UTC | #54 I've just run the numbers and they come out agreeing with your calculations. I've also verified that the transaction you mentioned has a 4.99NBT tx fee. As far as I'm concerned, the burn can go ahead ------------------------- Joe | 2015-03-09 21:40:01 UTC | #55 Double checked your math and all my figures match. ------------------------- creon | 2015-03-09 21:41:08 UTC | #56 [quote="jmiller, post:52, topic:1466"] AllcoinBTC: 20.0033 (5822.1605 NBT)NBT: 6896.3579 BitsparkBTC: 10.8693 (3163.6184 NBT)NBT: 2175.8859 PoloniexBTC: 87.5209 (25473.8331 NBT)NBT: 25447.9761 Off ExchangeBTC: 32.0023 (9314.5894 NBT)NBT: 150503.9 The exchange rate used is $291.06, which came from Bitcoinaverage.com on March 9, 2015 21:04 UTC. Total funds in NBT:228798.3213 [/quote] Sorry for the delay, I can confirm these numbers. If you don't truncate the exchanged BTC values after the 4th position you get 0.0001 NBT more in the final balance :smile: Mind to share how exactly you are burning? Are you using 'nud' and if so, what exactly do you use as command? ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-03-09 22:53:02 UTC | #57 Thank all of you for your help. The burn is complete. You may examine the transaction here: [6390f9015efc66adf423a80eb81ea43d13a1d4d0e52e11f020985f998bbb5353][1] @creon I will answer your question in a moment. I just wanted to get this posted first. [1]: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/6390f9015efc66adf423a80eb81ea43d13a1d4d0e52e11f020985f998bbb5353 ------------------------- Marshall | 2015-03-09 23:09:26 UTC | #58 It would appear it's in the transaction fee?... ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-03-09 23:24:56 UTC | #59 [quote="creon, post:56, topic:1466"] Mind to share how exactly you are burning? Are you using 'nud' and if so, what exactly do you use as command? [/quote] You can do this with nud, but I simply used a debug console from the gui. The standard command for constructing a raw transaction is: > createrawtransaction '[{"txid": "ID_OF_THE_TRANSACTION", "vout": OUTPUT_N}]' '{"RECIPIENT_ADDRESS": AMOUNT_TO_SEND, "CHANGE_ADDRESS": CHANGE_AMOUNT}' By dropping the last part (, "CHANGE_ADDRESS": CHANGE_AMOUNT) any change will be put towards fee, or "burned" as we are calling it here. So, here are the steps I used: 1. Send a normal transaction of 57199.58 NBT to a temporary holding address and take note of the txid. In this case, it was: 44da74b59b4e522784380bb022304cf44972f721146234e96d75240d9edb3455 2. Construct the raw transaction using the txid from your temporary holding transaction to the desired burn address and do not provide a change address: > createrawtransaction '[{"txid": "44da74b59b4e522784380bb022304cf44972f721146234e96d75240d9edb3455", "vout": 1}]' '{"BMdEGVo9oSmsFHDKiL39CYhaSD3AmCv4s4": 0.01}' 3. Use the transaction hex that the above command returned to check and make sure you've entered everything correctly: > decoderawtransaction 01000000ac22fe54015534db9e0d24756de934621421f77249f44c3022b00b388427524e9bb574da440100000000ffffffff0164000000000000001976a914bc65851004a5b595762bd16ce51194ad7c663a3388ac0000000042 **output:** { "txid" : "106a1da853f6e578e2b2fec76d5cc8b707d8f4aee1d580419eb6a7aa66023eb5", "version" : 1, "time" : 1425941164, "locktime" : 0, "unit" : "B", "vin" : [ { "txid" : "44da74b59b4e522784380bb022304cf44972f721146234e96d75240d9edb3455", "vout" : 1, "scriptSig" : { "asm" : "", "hex" : "" }, "sequence" : 4294967295 } ], "vout" : [ { "value" : 0.01, "n" : 0, "scriptPubKey" : { "asm" : "OP_DUP OP_HASH160 bc65851004a5b595762bd16ce51194ad7c663a33 OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_CHECKSIG", "hex" : "76a914bc65851004a5b595762bd16ce51194ad7c663a3388ac", "type" : "pubkeyhash", "reqSigs" : 1, "addresses" : [ "BMdEGVo9oSmsFHDKiL39CYhaSD3AmCv4s4" ] } } ] } 4. Sign the transaction using the same transaction hex. This will output a new transaction hex: > signrawtransaction 01000000ac22fe54015534db9e0d24756de934621421f77249f44c3022b00b388427524e9bb574da440100000000ffffffff0164000000000000001976a914bc65851004a5b595762bd16ce51194ad7c663a3388ac0000000042 **output:** { "hex" : "01000000ac22fe54015534db9e0d24756de934621421f77249f44c3022b00b388427524e9bb574da44010000006b483045022030378722de92cd279cdb3fe7eb62e867b48a40e30b3034db0beeea9215a6142b022100861dee5807ac0d0557f74770c8afe3c34dac882567ebd65205d1c876b9a8423501210362721967f873d43bc320d4fc5b90cf8156bdf18a4e48d7ded8fcdaa4b7c19d97ffffffff0164000000000000001976a914bc65851004a5b595762bd16ce51194ad7c663a3388ac0000000042", "complete" : true } 5. Now send the transaction using the signed transaction hex. This will send the transaction and output your final txid: > sendrawtransaction 01000000ac22fe54015534db9e0d24756de934621421f77249f44c3022b00b388427524e9bb574da44010000006b483045022030378722de92cd279cdb3fe7eb62e867b48a40e30b3034db0beeea9215a6142b022100861dee5807ac0d0557f74770c8afe3c34dac882567ebd65205d1c876b9a8423501210362721967f873d43bc320d4fc5b90cf8156bdf18a4e48d7ded8fcdaa4b7c19d97ffffffff0164000000000000001976a914bc65851004a5b595762bd16ce51194ad7c663a3388ac0000000042 **output:** 6390f9015efc66adf423a80eb81ea43d13a1d4d0e52e11f020985f998bbb5353 ------------------------- mhps | 2015-03-10 01:02:56 UTC | #60 Nice bonfire. We should have had a ceremony and a count down for this. Be it known that **Nu not only prints nubits. It systematically burns nubits as needed, too.** Gone are the days when Nubits creation was a oneway street. My confidence in Nu just goes up by a notch. We should announce it in the news far and wide and record it in the journal @tomjoad ------------------------- tomjoad | 2015-03-10 01:43:57 UTC | #61 [quote="mhps, post:60, topic:1466"] We should announce it in the news far and wide and record it in the journal @tomjoad [/quote] Posted to Twitter & Facebook: https://twitter.com/OfficialNuBits/status/575105027171315712 Posted to Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/NuBits/comments/2yie7a/a_nubits_custodian_has_completed_a_historic/ Reddit text: > Link: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-end-lpc-operations-of-ktm-jamie-and-nsr-sales-of-jordan/1466/57 > Proof of burned NBT: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/6390f9015efc66adf423a80eb81ea43d13a1d4d0e52e11f020985f998bbb5353 > What does this mean, and why is it a big deal? .... > It's important because this is the first time that a Nu custodian has used the burn mechanism for NuBits. It definitively proves that the network is capable of removing NBT from circulation when demand > necessitates it. Any "ponzi" label attributed to us by our competitors should now be retired forever. > Soon, the Nu network will have the ability to grant NuShares to custodians who promise to burn a certain number of NuBits. In this way, modest NBT demand declines can be directly protected by the market valuation of NuShares. This NSR-for-NBT burn mechanism will be a complement to the existing parking rates mechanism. .... > An additional supply-reduction mechanism - variable transaction fees - is scheduled for a future release too. > There should be no question at this point that NuBits is the world's first truly flexible decentralized digital currency. In contrast to Bitcoin, which relies on preset protocol values to determine supply, NuBits combines the power of blockchain technology with the wisdom of human judgment. > The future of Nu is bright! Text was slightly modified for /r/cryptocurrency ------------------------- mhps | 2015-03-10 01:49:26 UTC | #62 [quote="tomjoad, post:61, topic:1466"] > mhps > We should announce it in the news far and wide and record it in the journal @tomjoad Posted to Twitter & Facebook: https://twitter.com/OfficialNuBits/status/575105027171315712 Posted to Reddit: http://www.reddit.com/r/NuBits/comments/2yie7a/a_nubits_custodian_has_completed_a_historic/ [/quote] Excellent. ------------------------- crypto_coiner | 2015-03-10 13:04:01 UTC | #63 Excellent indeed - How does exactly Burning work? ------------------------- KTm | 2015-03-10 18:22:37 UTC | #64 Shareholders: My regular work is very busy this time of year and has me on the road frequently. I have just returned and wanted to provide my status on the steps required by this motion. I have successfully "burned" as fees 25% of the NBT remaining from my grant, totaling **255,759.654 NBT** (of 1,023,038.654 NBT). Proof of this burn exists in the Nu blockchain and can be verified by reviewing the transaction ID: [e4e4e0127f58df1c7f0e5a2e7e6ebac71453d4beb64e906a25d4ab2c7c5e6329](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/e4e4e0127f58df1c7f0e5a2e7e6ebac71453d4beb64e906a25d4ab2c7c5e6329) For more information please review the post that details the [breakdown of the status of my grant funds](https://discuss.nubits.com/t/nushare-auction/1579/20). The only change in my holdings between the day that post was written and today affects the "exchangeHeld" funds. The [first settlement with CCEDK](https://discuss.nubits.com/t/ccedk-withdrawals-impaired/1601/39) for a portion of the 87,200 NBT that was owed to me on behalf of the Shareholders occurred after that post had been written. Accordingly, it is my plan to burn as fees 25% of the NSR that had been received in the settlement--totaling **2,746,787 NSR** of the 10,987150 NSR--later tonight after I have confirmed that the burn process works the same for NSR as it does for NBT. I expect it does but will test with a small amount first to be sure. [quote="JordanLee, post:50, topic:1466"] Please let everyone know what address(es) you will burn from in advance. [/quote] I did not recognize this request the first time I read your post and apologize to the Shareholders for not submitting these addresses in advance. Addresses that the burned funds were sent from: * [BSyDq6yQ3vt2URGcBhJRmAdsNuQ5pXkAsx](http://blockexplorer.nu/address/BSyDq6yQ3vt2URGcBhJRmAdsNuQ5pXkAsx/1/newest) * [BFYzuakJCgyU7vsQY485ipC4aFtKVamF2m](http://blockexplorer.nu/address/BFYzuakJCgyU7vsQY485ipC4aFtKVamF2m/1/newest) * [BQ5MRjZ2q6pGFD4pmiUkWzKvrGEHQ5Recw](http://blockexplorer.nu/address/BQ5MRjZ2q6pGFD4pmiUkWzKvrGEHQ5Recw/1/newest) Thank you. //KTm ------------------------- mhps | 2015-03-13 13:35:57 UTC | #65 Does the burning shown in money supply report in the wallet? I don't see 0.25 million down step in [coinmarket 7-day chart][1] [1]: http://coinmarketcap.com/currencies/nubits/#charts ------------------------- peerchemist | 2015-03-13 13:46:05 UTC | #66 It needs to be reported to Coinmarketcap. ------------------------- Ben | 2015-03-13 15:00:07 UTC | #67 @KTm - any update on the planned NSR burn? ------------------------- KTm | 2015-03-13 20:28:34 UTC | #68 [quote="Ben, post:67, topic:1466, full:true"] @KTm - any update on the planned NSR burn? [/quote] I have not processed the burn of NSR yet. I had planned to do it yesterday after testing with a small amount but my schedule changed and I did not get home until very late. The first chance I will have to burn the settlement NSR will be tomorrow afternoon. I will provide the addresses that I will be using before I start so Shareholders can verify the action live in the block explorer. [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] 33% of the remaining funds should be burned as NuBits between 25 days and 30 days after passage. [/quote] After that, looking ahead at my calendar, the next set of burns will commence in nine days and will account for: * 253,202 NBT of the remaining 767,279 NBT held * 2,719,319 NSR of the remaining 8,240,363 NSR held (settlement funds) //Kiara ------------------------- KTm | 2015-03-16 14:58:52 UTC | #69 Shareholders: I will be initiating the burn of 2,746,787 NSR as fees in a few minutes. The address that I will be using is `SYzjKXnv8waGjFavoHbopbyjwMFGVBSAas` and once it has been processed and accepted by the Nu network this post will be updated with the transaction id. Update: That did not work as I expected it would. Only 10,000 of the NSR were used. I will reach out to the Nu Development Team to ask if there is a step that I need to do different from how NBT are burned to consolidate the inputs into a single output. A new burn address will be provided when I have the process worked out. Sorry for the delay. Partial burn transaction, for historical reference: [3da1d77e7c794b583322761a9c6f683e9e896e0f9757eb38c585a37723364818](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/3da1d77e7c794b583322761a9c6f683e9e896e0f9757eb38c585a37723364818) //Kiara ------------------------- KTm | 2015-03-16 15:17:26 UTC | #70 Shareholders: I am trying again after adding a parameter to my nu.conf file (`splitshareoutputs=5000000`) to increase the size of the outputs. The replacement burn for fees address to be used is `SVsMVp7QpzQ3qbtbEHMcudhvNrBjPgyJTA`. Updates will be added to this post once I have manually generated the new transaction. Update: After including the parameter to appropriately size the outputs I was able to burn the amount for fees. 2,736,787 NSR (total: 2,746,787 NSR taking into account the [10,000 NSR burned in the small transaction](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/3da1d77e7c794b583322761a9c6f683e9e896e0f9757eb38c585a37723364818) due to the incorrect output size specification) has been burned for fees in [a transaction sent to SVsMVp7QpzQ3qbtbEHMcudhvNrBjPgyJTA](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/2d150ac5b9c7bcf80dcff0fbf39cde0f3c6e72594161a416045f07c2cca40c47). This fulfills the first portion of my burn schedule and going forward will be burning in accordance with the timeline specified by this motion. //Kiara ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-04-03 03:57:36 UTC | #71 Shareholders, In accordance with the above motion, I am preparing to perform the next NBT burn. All available NBT and BTC has been withdrawn from Bter. Bter points, Bter securities, and outstanding BTC_B balances are listed but will not be included in the calculated percentage to be burned. Here is a breakdown of currently operated funds: **Allcoin** BTC: 30.25 (7678.36 NBT) NBT: 3998.03 **Bter** CNY: 25388.23 (4095.68 NBT) - converted from Bter points BTC: 0 BTC_B: 178.67 - not included in burn calculation Bter Points: 18575364.19 - not included in burn calculation Bter Securities BTQ: 18575354.19 - not included in burn calculation NBT: 0 NSR: 667298.73 (2071.96 NBT) **Bitspark** BTC: 10.97 (2784.52 NBT) NBT: 2146.65 **Poloniex** BTC: 85.2 (21626.35 NBT) NBT: 23771.14 **Off Exchange** BTC: 0 NBT: 202604.92 **Rates Calculations** Coinmarketcap.com (NSR) 0.003105 4/3/15 03:25 UTC Bitcoinaverage.com 253.83 USD 4/3/15 03:25 UTC **Total NBT** 270777.61 **33%** 89356.61 NBT **89356.61 NBT** will be burned to address **BH5KkzwvD9TzXuuDKBQ6BYdBpKce3ao4Y4** Jamie ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-04-03 04:21:35 UTC | #72 The burn transaction is complete. You may view it on the block explorer by clicking the following txid link: [8da2ca8d458c212c5850a4f4a59208a3f32804d88335f9de5472477e8d95e2d3][1] [1]: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/8da2ca8d458c212c5850a4f4a59208a3f32804d88335f9de5472477e8d95e2d3 ------------------------- wengone | 2015-04-11 23:03:55 UTC | #73 @jmiller Good job！ And @KTm When will do this job ? ------------------------- KTm | 2015-04-12 16:48:10 UTC | #74 [quote="wengone, post:73, topic:1466"] And @KTm When will do this job ? [/quote] Today. NBT burn address: **B53UwF2iJZBykmZqTxeYgxoTP4HNYtvEgW** Amount: **253,202 NBT** (of the remaining 767,279 NBT held) NSR burn address: **SVNeTTKYGMujZ59DERpxkxwwXeBRHz28nf** Amount: **2,719,319 NSR** (of the remaining 8,240,363 NSR held [CCEDK settlement funds]) I will include the transaction IDs of the burned funds once they appear in the block chain. //Kiara --- NBT Burn TxID in block: [307,390](http://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/f125a4a1bcbe2112bf69d3e6e72167e3c8352a8f35d59ffa5aa447122e1d2b04/1) -- [c6d670ca72a8bf2b2fd21f4043b66730af76a01645d9af8a050f87cfdf9f22b4](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/c6d670ca72a8bf2b2fd21f4043b66730af76a01645d9af8a050f87cfdf9f22b4) NSR Burn TxID in block: [307,403](http://blockexplorer.nu/blocks/f219e28e1820e460bbd7f7cf881f0688044da6895d312791a7aec3c839c43f66/1) -- [5365485eb68e683cac328a35b3481990e9cb238b544b104b944c83bc8c97b14b](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/5365485eb68e683cac328a35b3481990e9cb238b544b104b944c83bc8c97b14b) ------------------------- pennybreaker | 2015-04-12 19:44:25 UTC | #75 This process always makes me think of [Mike Caro burning benjamins at the poker table][1] to make his opponents think he's crazy. :smile: [1]: http://www.poker1.com/archives/25262/mike-caro-poker-word-caring-2 ------------------------- mhps | 2015-04-13 03:46:13 UTC | #76 A technical issue with burning by sending coins to fees seems to be that moneysupply reported by the client doesn't show the consequence. Or does it? ------------------------- sigmike | 2015-04-13 06:14:06 UTC | #77 It does. The minor issue compared to the solution proposed in [the motion][1] is we can't differentiate an accidental extra fee from a burning. But it's correctly removed from the supply like normal fee. [1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-permit-nushare-custodians-and-burning-transactions/1155 ------------------------- mhps | 2015-04-13 06:27:26 UTC | #78 This is great. Thanks. ------------------------- Joe | 2015-04-15 02:52:29 UTC | #79 Has any talk been done about when Nu is in high demand about not burning fees and instead putting them into walls or dividends? ------------------------- tomjoad | 2015-04-15 04:07:57 UTC | #80 In regards to dividends, our FAQ answers it here: https://nubits.com/about/faqs#why-are-nushare-dividends-paid-in-peercoin >We require an asset external to our system to distribute dividends. The purpose of creating NuBits is primarily to meet increased demand for NuBits in a way that prevents the rise of the NuBit price. If we distributed NuBits to shareholders instead of bringing them directly to market, there would be no way of knowing whether shareholders would hold them or sell them, or for how long they would hold them. It wouldn't permit the network to tightly control the supply of available NuBits, which is necessary to maintain the pegged price. Destroying NBT as transaction fees means that brand-new NBT must be purchased from custodians if demand is static or growing. Those new NBT can eventually be sold for dividends if shareholders choose that outcome. ------------------------- KTm | 2015-04-27 17:37:21 UTC | #81 Shareholders: This morning I conducted the third burn of shareholder funds (NBT and NSR) under custodianship as required by this passed motion. ### NBT Burn **Amount**: 257,031.985 NBT (50% of remaining 514,063 NBT held) **Transaction ID**: [874477c08257837cc32d0238699a7b536f3bf6c1e6d2cb86c512ab3660bd5d80](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/874477c08257837cc32d0238699a7b536f3bf6c1e6d2cb86c512ab3660bd5d80) ### NSR Burn **Amount**: 2,760,487.6 NSR (50% of remaining 5,520,975 NSR held) **Transaction ID**: [10981786a8d87009bd4e672f97666c6fa0cf4601172ff9d77878f33e288c78bf](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/10981786a8d87009bd4e672f97666c6fa0cf4601172ff9d77878f33e288c78bf) Baring any changes to the requirements, the remaining NBT and NSR held in my possession will be burned within the next month. **Additional Information**: The ~24k EUR on the buy side of the CCEDK NBT/EUR market that I am the custodian of will be continue to be provided as liquidity until it is exhausted. NBT acquired from this trading pair will be burned either as part of the final burn or as an additional burn after that point as required. //Kiara ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-04-28 03:59:03 UTC | #82 I have burned all NBT held in excess of 250,000. As you may recall, I have received only 1 grant of 200,000 NBT. Additionally, all contributors except those receiving custodial grants and those receiving NSR have been paid with NBT I supplied. This means 346,215 NBT plus all the NBT paid to contributors was purchased on the open market to support the peg. **NBT Burn** **Amount**: 396,215.4116 NBT (leaving 250,000 remaining) **Transaction ID**: [c504f9c0d09cfc6cc155e73931dc5bf450f2ab85ae72649b047177485101bcae][1] [1]: https://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/c504f9c0d09cfc6cc155e73931dc5bf450f2ab85ae72649b047177485101bcae ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-05-06 22:20:37 UTC | #83 178.67 BTC is still locked up on Bter. These funds will be converted to NBT and burned when they are finally released. For now, they will not be included in this 50% burn calculation. All Bter points and securities were used to buy 22.9 BTC on April 22nd, which was sent to Poloniex to support the buy side. Bitspark.io has been removed from supported exchanges and those funds were sent to Poloniex or to offline storage. **Currently managed funds:** **Allcoin** **BTC:** 0.58 (136.22 NBT) **NBT:** 929.27 **Poloniex** **BTC:** 17.72 (4161.8964 NBT) **NBT:** 34459.02 **Off Exchange** **BTC:** 0 **NBT:** 137393.9 **NSR:** 667282 (1894 NBT) **Rates used:** Coinmarketcap.com (NSR) 0.002839 5/6/15 21:02 UTC Coinmarketcap.com (BTC) 234.87 USD 5/6/15 21:02 UTC **Total managed funds:** 178974.77 NBT **50% to be burned:** 87592.92 NBT to BMJnwCJEf5PTsmF2o63HamU5hWK2nRfVVJ 667282 NSR (1894 NBT) to SY3uXFitM2LQcWCph8hXQM2hj5kJDUn4N6 Edit: Changed NSR burn address ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-05-06 22:28:00 UTC | #84 The burns are complete. NBT: [e2add6ff8d2b40062a853c83bb821105efc58b78655766c279c3e410b5eb85e8][1] NSR: [dc63b19eed1f86a90d8fb02899c58310eaeb98fd50b310df065350ce7f385519][2] [1]: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/e2add6ff8d2b40062a853c83bb821105efc58b78655766c279c3e410b5eb85e8 [2]: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/dc63b19eed1f86a90d8fb02899c58310eaeb98fd50b310df065350ce7f385519 ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-05-23 15:18:04 UTC | #85 We should see the final burns from @jmiller and @KTm in the next 4 days. That's very exciting. We have almost completed the transition to decentralized liquidity that has no counterparty risk from the point of view of the network. Never again will Nu be plagued with the loss of shareholder funds as a result of an exchange default, as happened with BTER, CCEDK and Excoin. Jamie has funds on BTER that can't be withdrawn and Kiara has funds on CCEDK that can't be withdrawn as a result of the hacks on those exchanges, so they will continue to manage those as shareholder funds until they are released or defaulted on. ------------------------- masterOfDisaster | 2015-05-23 15:50:36 UTC | #86 [quote="JordanLee, post:85, topic:1466"] We have almost completed the transition to decentralized liquidity that has no counterparty risk from the point of view of the network. [/quote] Providing decentralized liquidity is a success story that is at not yet in full bloom. But Nu already begins to have positive effects from it. A lot of money is being operated by @henry in NuLagoon and even more in the 3 TLLP pools operated by @Cybnate, @Nagalim, @willy & @woolly_sammoth (in alphabetical order). Now Nu needs to care for the robustness of the liquidity providing as it would be a big blow for the ability to keep the peg if the decentralized liquidity providing would be impacted by human or software failure. The counterparty risk has been shifted from the Nu network to the liquidity providers. They need to be provided with proper tools and need fairly compensated for the risk they take. The competition will sort out what can be considered fair ;) I don't wanna spoil the party (which I feel the Nu network should have considering these achievements) and I think the success of Nu is on very solid ground; I just wanted to say that Nu still is responsible for the liquidity (albeit not directly) and that the money is well spent on the pools - to provide liquidity and to provide an entry for people into Nu! I'm looking forward to see @henry's multi-signature pools and I'm looking forward to see improved versions of TLLP pool software and so much more TLLP pools on so much more exchanges! Hooray! ------------------------- wengone | 2015-05-29 00:24:39 UTC | #87 Final burns is ok ? ------------------------- KTm | 2015-05-31 14:55:18 UTC | #88 Shareholders: The final set of currency burns occurred earlier this afternoon. ### NBT Burn **Amount**: 257031.885 NBT **Transaction ID**: [399b6bae558c91a4f374083b88277601d033300c73939d79f19d859e7c4128c1](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/399b6bae558c91a4f374083b88277601d033300c73939d79f19d859e7c4128c1) ### NSR Burn **Amount**: 2,760,487.6 NSR **Transaction ID**: [6b6d8be172355276b62d9a7918dc9aa8085cc261088390f61903598c1832352b](http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/6b6d8be172355276b62d9a7918dc9aa8085cc261088390f61903598c1832352b) This represents the full amount of funds held (grant NBT and NSR from the settlement) that are not currently on exchange in the form of "buy-side" EUR, on CCEDK, or funds that were lost during the Exco.in and CCEDK exchange attacks in February. I am still seeking resolution to recover those funds, and I'll put together a new post in the coming days detailing the remaining amounts that I'm seeking to recover. At the same time I'll try to see if it's possible to consolidate as many of my operational logs as possible to make them available to the community for data analysis. I'll start to review the different operating accounts that have logs to confirm that I have the bulk of them in a place that is accessible\* and then evaluate what it would take to put them together in a collection. Thank you for allowing me to act as a custodian for your funds. We encountered a significant number of unexpected challenges along the way, but even with the difficulties I'm proud to have been able to contribute to the network's early days. Many of the conversations and proposals that I've read here on the forums would not have been possible to have without the large number of different events and situations that we've come across. //Kiara --- \* *I know for sure that the tranasctional from BTER during the early to middle of September are not available. BTER did not have a way of accessing this information beyond 24 hours after the trade occurred and I did not know about this until it was too late. I did not operate long on BTER before @jmiller started her operations, so the missing trade records only represent a tiny fraction of my total operations.* ------------------------- mhps | 2015-05-31 15:04:35 UTC | #89 Your effort is great;y appreciated, Kiara. ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-06-02 05:13:51 UTC | #90 Hi Everyone, Please accept my apologies for the delay in processing this round of burns. I'm working through an issue with Allcoin where the final withdraw of 1929.27 NBT failed to be transferred and was not returned to account balance. Also, the Poloniex withdraw process is taking a few days longer than originally expected due to their recent withdraw limit changes. I will provide a detailed update very soon. Thank you for your patience. Jamie ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-07-03 11:44:17 UTC | #91 [quote="jmiller, post:90, topic:1466"] I will provide a detailed update very soon. [/quote] Any update? [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] They should receive their pre-determined commission [/quote] By the way, I am wondering about the amount of this commission. And was it eventually granted? ------------------------- jmiller | 2015-07-04 17:00:21 UTC | #92 [quote="cryptog, post:91, topic:1466"] Any update? [/quote] Yes. I'm sorry this has taken so long. I suspect Allcoin of insolvency. If anyone has funds there, I would strongly suggest attempting to withdraw them. For several weeks, I have been attempting to withdraw the final chunk (**1929.2719 NBT**) of shareholder funds that are still held on Allcoin. This started as a couple of failed withdraw attempts, where I was given an error, the funds were returned to balance, and I was instructed to reattempt the withdraw. This failed withdraw error has happened again, but now I am no longer receiving replies to my inquiries from Allcoin support. This leaves me with nothing to suspect other than pending exchange default for Allcoin. All remaining funds (**91178.16 NBT**) under my control, with the exception of pending Allcoin and Bter funds, have been burned in this transaction: [**37546ba46b3b546d7c9edce3c61922993e2b4529723a4cef1e704748a894eed0**][1] I will continue to monitor the situations at Bter and Allcoin until resolution or default and inform all of you as soon as I learn anything new. [1]: http://blockexplorer.nu/transactions/37546ba46b3b546d7c9edce3c61922993e2b4529723a4cef1e704748a894eed0 ------------------------- cryptog | 2015-07-04 04:53:23 UTC | #93 Tks a lot for your update. ------------------------- mhps | 2015-08-18 07:19:09 UTC | #94 [quote="jmiller, post:92, topic:1466"] I suspect Allcoin of insolvency. [/quote] My NBT test deposit to allcoin.com didn't show up (blockexplorer showed successful tx). My support ticket for the issue hasn;t been answered for almost a week. I think the Nu exchanges page should put up a warning of allcoin.com ------------------------- tomjoad | 2015-08-18 17:00:20 UTC | #95 Shareholders seemed to suggest that we should not be in the business of preemptively warning our users about potentially dangerous exchanges. From [the recent motion to list all exchange resources:][1] > This motion is to express the desire of NuShares holders to list all NuBits and NuShares exchange resources in all current and future marketing materials which are under the control of the Nu team. [...] The exchanges listed are not endorsed by the NuShareholders by any means. The NuShareholders cannot be held liable for any funds lost by using these exchanges. This listing only intends to be an overview where NuShares and NuBits can be traded. Users of these exchanges need to do their own due diligence before using these exchanges. This can be done by searching the discuss.nubits.com forums for any previous events or asking questions in the community. I would like to avoid acting unilaterally in the area of exchange listings, given my previous stance on CCEDK. If any NuShareholder would like to introduce a motion to remove AllCoin from the Exchanges page, I would be happy to comply if it passes. I would assume such a motion would include evidence of the risk the exchange poses to the public. [1]: https://discuss.nubits.com/t/passed-motion-to-list-all-nubits-and-nushares-exchange-resources-including-ccedk/2302 ------------------------- NubitGuy | 2015-08-18 18:34:07 UTC | #96 allcoins has also frozen nsr deposits/withdrawals ------------------------- masterOfDisaster | 2015-08-18 20:26:18 UTC | #97 [quote="mhps, post:94, topic:1466"] I think the Nu exchanges page should put up a warning of allcoin.com [/quote] There already is a warning - for all exchanges on the footer of https://nubits.com/exchanges/nubits-exchanges: [quote] Note: NuShareholders do not endorse any specific exchange. NuShareholders cannot be held liable for any funds lost by using these exchanges. This listing only intends to be an overview where NuShares and NuBits can be traded. Users of these exchanges need to do their own due diligence before using these exchanges. [/quote] I feel that trying to track the reliability of exchanges is beyond the capabilities of Nu. Issuing warnings shouldn't save people from doing their own due diligence, but it might lead to exactly that: they rely on the information about exchanges, believe in them and make Nu accountable for damage that is dealt by that. I'm not in favour of Nu giving the impression it would vouch for exchanges that carry no individual warnings. I see a big difference to exchanges with liquidity operations, though (which is not the case for allcoin). If Nu provides people with incentives to put money at an exchange, it should keep an eye on it. Practically the liquidity pool operators will be in a good position to track the situation, but still I see some responsibility for Nu not to continue (by funding it) liquidity operations at exchanges that don't work reliably. ------------------------- mhps | 2015-08-19 00:53:01 UTC | #98 That might be related to nu 2.0 upgrade. ------------------------- mhps | 2015-08-19 00:56:11 UTC | #99 [quote="tomjoad, post:95, topic:1466"] Shareholders seemed to suggest that we should not be in the business of preemptively warning our users about potentially dangerous exchanges. [/quote] fine with me ------------------------- JordanLee | 2015-10-20 16:08:15 UTC | #100 [quote="JordanLee, post:1, topic:1466"] Within 60 days after the protocol is altered to permit custodial grants of NuShares, Jordan Lee must burn all undistributed NuShares. [/quote] This requires me to burn the remaining 40 million NSR I have custody of in the next few days. I will do so, but it weakens the peg until someone or some group has NSR granted to them that they can use to defend the peg. We still have the ability to sell NSR for NBT, but the network will require a week or two to set that in motion. Temporarily, the network is losing its capacity to use tier 6 liquidity in reaction to a quick and unexpected drop in demand for NuBits. I know group efforts are underway to regain the capacity to bring tier 6 liquidity within hours if needed. Such efforts are important and urgent. I recommend the criteria for selling NSR to support the peg be specified as either: 1. Buy side walls in tier 1, 2 and 3 are less than 25% of all liquidity in those tiers. 2. Parking rates have been offered continuously for more than 30 days. ------------------------- masterOfDisaster | 2015-10-20 17:35:19 UTC | #101 This NSR burn is required by motion, but it's very bad timing. A pity that the community didn't put more efforts in forming a tier 4 (buy side) fund management - the NSR would be better there than burned only because of the time it takes to create them by grant. Keeping a part of tier 4 buy side funds in NSR instead of BTC seems wise in terms of BTC volatility and potential BTC default risk (which might be low, but not 0). ------------------------- mhps | 2015-10-21 00:30:16 UTC | #102 Don't we have so much Tier 4 we are selling it to buy NSR to burn? It doesn't make sense to keep these NSR it seems [quote="JordanLee, post:100, topic:1466"] 1. Buy side walls in tier 1, 2 and 3 are less than 25% of all liquidity in those tiers. [/quote] It should be defined for "are less" for how long. [quote="JordanLee, post:100, topic:1466"] 2 . Parking rates have been offered continuously for more than 30 days. [/quote] If this is the kind of timeframe there should be enough time to make NSR grant by voting. Burning the 40mil shouldn't be an issue. [quote="masterOfDisaster, post:101, topic:1466"] A pity that the community didn't put more efforts in forming a tier 4 (buy side) fund management [/quote] You do with what you have. I think the NSR should be burned and have the action closed. -------------------------