Let us state it once and for all:
Nu provides the tightest peg it can afford.
Anything else is not credible, especially not after the recent events.
Where does that money to pay the liquidity custodians come from?
If it did come from revenue, you could afford it.
If you manage to make revenue, current and future customers can be satisfied.
Btw. your current customers are your debtees!
Nu is no profitable business, because your costs outperform your revenue.
Like @JordanLee said, what caused the break of the peg is someone who dumped several dozens of thousands of NBTs at once.
We held the peg for 20months perfectly before that, despite several adverse events.
Empirically, if we account correctly for that kind of event, we must be good â
We know how to do it.
To Sell dynamically, and smoothly in real time NSRs so that we can buy back the NBTs that are being sold.
That is quite simple.
The reason they sell NBT because Nu is runing out of money, donât fool me by saying that the customers are fools. They are as smart as us, otherwise they have to sell NBT at 0.3$ now.
Donât fool the freemarket.
btc halving is coming, thus btc will grow in value. The same exact thing had happened during the previous halving. NBT wasnât alive then 
And donât tell me that it is not possible to predict how the market is moving!
Both btc halving and low reserve are the reasons of pegging failure.
You held the peg and printed more and more NBT - more and more NBT, for which there was no corresponding asset in your treasury.
On the contrary, you sold BTC for NSR.
How many NBT were demanded by the market, because of the buybacks?
How many NBT were demanded by the market, because of Blocks & Chains Exchange funding?
Is it possible that the biggest demand for NBT in the last 12 months was originated by Nu and its architect?
I doubt it.
You havenât even started to get your accounting sorted out.
I might better save my time!
Chase your dream.
It isnât.
You need relatively stable or at least a liquid NSR market for that.
You have neither.
Thatâs what brought Nu where it is.
It can only escape from this situation, if revenue can restore confidence in the ability to fill reserves and sustain a peg (at whatever level).
Hi @Sentinelrv, I have read it and was confused sometimes as it partly reads like what Jordan had said and meant and partly like a account history. Itâs good that you cleared it up by
So you are trying to show what it looked like through Jordanâs eyes, except you are not sure if Jordan meant what you think he meant.
OK. I donât know what Jordan meant exactly by âliquidity engineâ, something he said he had never heard before. I am glad that Jordan has his vision and is able to sell it. Entrepreneurs need to have that. But I canât help questioning whether the architect is able to make the idea understood by the community, by the operators of the engine. As this timeline shows, months passed after the gateways ops had set to increase offsets before JL stepped in. The relation between spread and effectiveness of T5 wasnât explained until the âfiringâ thread.
Now we still hear this
So how many other critical kill-switches this engine has? Is it that this engine has so many critical inter-connected moving parts it is just a matter of time something catastrophic happens? That is a systemic, architecture question. I am glad to see the latest idea of simplifying the system:
Itâs worrying to see the kind of profound lack of people skill in the architect. Will the architect be paying more attention to liquidity ops, working side by side with the ops? Will those who step forward to contribute their work be blamed again for future mishappening of the engine of which I am sure there have to be many?
Yes itâs been in my mind all the time. I regret not to have brought this up at least once a week.
Good guess. Liquidity cost was about 10k NBT a month (5% - 7% per mo liquidity provided) which is difficult to cut down due to exchange default risks (100% loss in 2 years assumed. you have 4%/mo right there) and Nu has to compensate btc price risks. NBT/BTC volatility has been identified as the main near-term risk (it is the cause of our situation now). The rationale to focus on the nbt/btc pair for now, as accepted by the community, is that pegging through nbt/btc is for the initial phase of Nu when custmer acquisition is the main goal. BCE will elinminate exchange default risk, lowering liquidity cost. nbt/btc pegging will be phased out after nubits are widely used and Nu figures out a working profit model. So getting new customers to pay old ones was not the plan. Nu plan to have a large stable user base.
I forgot about this. You mean phased out and NBT/USD phased in?
I believe I understand the reason for the multiple user names now. Heâs simply trying to make a point that there is no single and ultimate authority here, even Jordan Lee himself. It doesnât matter what your identity or user name is. As long as you can convince a majority of shareholders to vote for your motion or grant, that is all that matters. That is peer-to-peer authority. See his recent posts belowâŚ
Yep, even better if you hold more than 50% alone and ignore any request for financial transparency. Great.
âHey, I seem to be proposing good stuff. All motions I set up go through in no time!â
Jordan has a nice vision but he himself fails to help it become reality. He stands in his own way if what he proposes really is the way he actually wants to go.
So many here are captivated by the Stockholm syndrome.
Where do you see that?
It is obvious that nobody has more than 50% right now.
What is your main criticism?
If someone wants to steer the project to another direction, you can write a motion and put it for voting.
That is all that matters.
I would love to believe that.