As if that was necessary.
Because he created it!
For the price to go up healthily you need either an external revenue source that pays for the debt inflation, or just buying out all old debt at low prices and reissue new ones.
I know he has most likely read the thread already and knows the situation, but I just wanted to be sure. Maybe you’re right though. Somebody with good intentions probably wouldn’t be acting this way. I’ve never seen anything like this before.
I don’t hope to take the money from Nu holders, what money?
B&C can survive on its own if released, even the fund of 100k NBT never come back.
The remaining BTC reserve held by FLOT. We do have a recent thread with this title: Transferring all Nu assets to B&C. You can imagine how different that thread would look if none of its participants owned BKS, which is the financial incentive I’m talking about.
1- I don’t exactly understand the difference between “Issuance Pool” and “Reserve Balance”, but the sum balances out close to Total USDT authorized. It may or may not be fractional.
2- It’s a webpage, not an auditable situation that is possible with Nu and the disclosure of addresses (i.e.: the FLOT addresses)
So the numbers look good (or a lot better than Nu) but can you trust them.
The remaining BTC is neglectable, LOL
It is still money, which creates incentives. Anyway, I don’t mean to be accusing you (or anyone else) personally.
Sure. With the 25btc FLOT has, if BTC price rises to $25,600, Nu will be fully reserved again. Time is on our side.
If Nu picks up all the NBT, then the money supply starts at zero (in practice Nu wouldn’t get it all, but it might get close to all of it). This means few funds are required to have a full reserve. Let’s say BTC ends up at 2000, giving us 50k in reserves. Using NSR sales over time as the community recovers, another 50k could be raised. That is 100k in reserves, and there may only be 100,000 NBT in circulation after Nu pulls most NBT back in. It is plausible.
Full reserve. Full peg. We can do it if we are patient and tenacious.
then better stop destroying and exploiting it!
that is not too bad.
Well, BTC to $2000 is a wishful thought at this point. Then there’s $50k of fundraising, which is wishful but perhaps possible. But wouldn’t the only way for circulating NBT to fall by 85% (700k to 100k) would be if Nu is buying it back? So that has to be done in addition to the $50k fundraising? Hm.
I have to admit that it could hypothetically happen this way, but there’s also a risk that the talented, hardworking people of Nu might wander to other projects.
@mhps I didn’t say a full peg was bad. I was just pointing out incentives.
understood. I mean Nu’s customers also have nbt so JL’s incentive is aligned in that aspect. JL could have btc and no nbt. that would be worse. ehhh maybe.
I’d say you can be confident that:
- The people who want to involve B&C Exchange probably own BKS
- The people who are OK with a permanently lower peg probably don’t own much NBT
- The people who are OK with high dilution don’t own much NSR
True. There are many different interests. Thats why everybody should look at the fundamentals.
I’ve finally realized why this is odd.
Imagine a game. You are the Nu network. The opponent is a large NBT holder who has 100k NBT, and you have only 10k USD worth of reserves. You put the offer to buy them for 10 cents each. If the opponent sells, you will have your peg.
Now, what do you do? The opponent knows that eventually you want to restore the peg. When you do, they take all your reserves with just a portion of their NBT, and you’re back to the start!
So, the fallacy to this reasoning is to assume that circulating NBT will eventually be available for sale. If Nu’s customers know that it wishes to restore the peg, they may lie in wait.
Interesting thought experiment.
But we just plan to restore peg, if we fail, the NBT holders will suffer, so the economics is much of game theory, as a basic knowledge.
How would that happen in that scenario? You bought all the nbt they had.