A paradox in our peg

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. :slight_smile:

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.

1 Like

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


1 Like

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.

Nothing happens.

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. :slight_smile:

1 Like

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.

1 Like

Oh, I mean, if the opponent never sells to you. They always wait for your peg, so they can maximize profit.

Possible but that would be question of risk/reward, those people would have a lot of trust in NBT. Someone with 100k could loose 100k.

1 Like

That’s correct, high reward high risk, old rule.

Why don’t u login in as Jordan Lee and declare Nu is completely failed, so NBT price plumbs to as low as 0.01$.

Then you can buy 7000USD value of NBT and destory them, finally you regiest a new account and reboot Nubits.


1 Like

To me your thinking makes a lot of sense.
Basically the peg is right now the object of speculation and this is the only force that makes it stand a bit.
It is right now under 20 cents by the way.
Before the collapse, liquidity provision was the only force, making it stand, by the way perfectly.
By this force needs energy, which costs.
We need revenues to counterbalance that cost.
So for the reboot of the peg i am ok with using nubot at a tight peg for certain quantity of liquidity but we must make money at the same time via services. The first service should be probably a small fee via a moderate spread for certain quantity of liquidity, i feel.

1 Like

Serious question: who believes JordanLee any longer?

That’s the reason why we either have to:

  1. peg to cent and become nucents, with full reserve and extra money for expenses and development of revenue.

  2. Implement creons fees based on coin age.

isn;t that just @Cybnate’s latest proposal draft?

1 Like

Yes, it is. With a plan a build around it.