@Sabreiib, no doubt you feel badly about your financial losses that occurred due to the misconduct of the lawless authoritarians that infiltrated the ranks of the custodians. So you look for a reason to justify your feelings. This forum community, many of whom were those misbehaving custodians, have a motive to shift blame away from themselves by implicating the fundamental design of the network. Either it was their fault, or the fault of the design. They are pushing the narrative that the design is faulty to avoid the blame they so richly deserve.
Before the misconduct of the custodians, who illegally locked down funds they were under contract to make available, people said NuBits were bad because we couldn’t buy all them back for $1. After the illegal default perpetrated by a handful of authoritarian custodians, we bought back over 85% of all NuBits in a short period of time, leaving very little doubt that we can buy back every NuBit. We not only maintained the peg after the misconduct, we increased the value of NuBits 400%. We did this with a system badly damaged by the misconduct of some of the custodians, functioning with at most, 20% capacity (due to a massive reduction in market cap). It was still enough. There was tremendous ample peg supporting capacity in the system. It has been expensive for Nu to buy back almost all of its NuBits. It wasn’t the best place for us to spend our limited resources. It does, however, provide powerful evidence of the robustness of the liquidity engine.
Currency hyperinflations have occurred dozens, if not hundreds, of times throughout history. NuBits hyperinflated from May 27 to late June. But then one of the strangest events in monetary history occurred just after that. Despite the panic, despite the loss of confidence in NuBits, we were able to quickly reverse the hyperinflation and restore the currency to a full 100% of its previous value. I know of no precedent for this. Nothing like it has ever occurred before. It shows the incredible robustness of the mechanism that Nu uses to keep its peg. Misbehaving decentralized liquidity providers will continue to try to deflect blame from themselves and onto the design of system, but the results of our experiment are very clear: the economic model proved to be a profound success, a phenomenal monetary invention, while we had problems in our innovative, decentralized control of funds. Funds simply didn’t move as they were supposed to for a short period of time. We have fixed that. Now let’s move forward with the promotion of this incredible economic innovation.
