[Closed] Motion to cease shareholder-funded NBT/PPC operations

[Chronos]

This motion is nearly passed. It has exceeded 4500 of the past 10000 blocks, and is continuing to climb. @KTm may wish to start considering the best way to fulfill it. Note that the motion mandates that any trades occur on CCEDK.

1ce96336ac866c29cbcbf0908b0752b0065a3af4

Begin motionMotion d29b0997816d9f5ef8de5c238cca1e618dafc974, if passed previously, is nullified.

The PPC/NBT trading pair should feature approximately 20,000 NBT in total liquidity. When this becomes unbalanced with more than 80% of liquidity on either wall, PPC should either be purchased or sold to balance the wall. KTm or other custodian shall receive 1% commission on balancing trades. Balancing trades should be conducted on CCEDK for KTm’s ease and to encourage development of PPC liquidity there.

For example, suppose that PPC is exchanged for NBT such that there is now 20,000 NBT in buy support (as PPC) and 0 NBT for sale in exchange for PPC. To balance this, 10,000 NBT worth of PPC is removed from buy support. It is sold on the PPC/BTC pair. The BTC proceeds are then used to purchase NBT on the BTC/NBT pair. The NBT proceeds (after 1% commission is substracted) are placed for sale on the PPC/NBT pair, balancing the walls. This way, change in demand for PPC is reflected in the market price of PPC.End motion

[Chronos]

This motion has tapered off at 46.5% of the past 10000 blocks. If you would like to support this motion, please add the motion hash, 1ce96336ac866c29cbcbf0908b0752b0065a3af4, to the Motions window inside the Vote tab of your Nu client.

You may prefer to take no action or remove the hash, if you are against this motion.

Thank you!

[mhps]

I believe this is caused by a big drop of minting shares in the last few days. The minting difficulty is dipping to the lowest point since late August according to http://blockexplorer.nu/charts/posdiff

I can only guess that the drop is caused by many shares have moved, e.g. to new shareholdeers from Jodan and to the exchange when there is a big move in the market.

[tomjoad]

I can only guess that the drop is caused by many shares have moved, e.g. to new shareholdeers from Jodan and to the exchange when there is a big move in the market

The undistributed shares held by Jordan aren’t minting, so your second guess is a more likely cause.

[Shiroe]

Would it be possible to increase margins on more volatile coins like PPC?

Also one problem with Jordan’s proposal is that the price could have slipped a lot by the time you choose to balance.

[desrever]

I now support @Chronos original motion to cease PPC operations.

Vote for: d29b0997816d9f5ef8de5c238cca1e618dafc974

After last weeks of trading activity I am more convinced that our long-term direction should be stopping providing liquidity on risky pairs. PPC is without doubt currently the more risky : low liquidity.

Instead of requiring additional complexity for developers, shareholders and providers, I think we should send out a clear sign that we intend to provide liquidity only on BTC and USD, to finally move to USD .

BEGIN MOTIONThis motion mandates that shareholder-funded custodians, currently @KTm and @jmiller, immediately cease operations on PPC-based currency pairs. The peercoins held in the buy walls of these pairs may be exchanged for BTC to support another currency pair, or be held for a future dividend distribution, and the custodian’s discretion.END MOTION

[pennybreaker]

I agree with ending PPC liquidity support. The pair seems to only be used as an easy way to dump PPC. This is bad for both PPC and the Nu network. The pair should remain available but not supported by our custodians.

[Chronos]

The motion to end PPC liquidity support is currently at 16.85% support over the past 10000 blocks, and it must exceed 50% in order to pass. For those interested in supporting this, enter the following motion hash into your minting client:

d29b0997816d9f5ef8de5c238cca1e618dafc974

[cryptog]

Right now, I am against this motion since it lowers the role of PPC for Nu.
At the same time it lowers the possibility of creating liquidity of NuBits.
I sold a portion of PPCs to get NuBits.

[Ben]

Right now, I am against this motion since it lowers the role of PPC for Nu.At the same time it lowers the possibility of creating liquidity of NuBits.I sold a portion of PPCs to get NuBits.

In that case, in almost every timing scenario I can think of, you’re better off than you would have been if you would have held your PPC.

Having Custodians lose money for the benefit of peercoin holders is not in Nu shareholders’ best interests.

[cryptog]

@ben.

I forgot to mention that I am against the original motion of chronos but I am in favor for the motion of JL.

Having Custodians lose money for the benefit of peercoin holders is not in Nu shareholders’ best interests.

Certainly but I fail to see how selling ppcs for nubits is detrimental for Custodians. Could you explain a bit?
It is at least beneficial for Nu as a whole, since it creates demand of NuBits, right?
Am I mistaken?
In any case, sorry for the lack of knowledge.

[Ben]

It’s fairly simple. I’ll use screenshots to illustrate:

BTC-e is one of the larger exchanges of peercoins in terms of volume and liquidity. Here’s a capture of the PPC/BTC order book from a few minutes ago.

And here’s a screen capture taken a few seconds later showing the NBT/PPC pair on CCEDK:

The PPC/USD exchange rate is down sharply over the last seven days:

This cannot end well if custodians continue to hold the bag and provide an easy to convert source of liquidity for everyone trying to exit the Peercoin market without radically adjusting the price.

[mhps]

I agree with ending PPC liquidity support. The pair seems to only be used as an easy way to dump PPC.

Now that isn’t very fair. PPC price has been going down so we see more people selling. When the up thread eventually arrive, we could see the pair being a main venue to buy PPC.

I still support to remove the pair for cost/benefit reasons, under current liquidity condition, though. If btc-e lists NBT, it might be a different matter as it has high PPC liquidity.

[Ben]

Now that isn’t very fair.

Would these people be selling if there wasn’t an available supply of liquidity that they could enter without further driving down the price of PPC?

Think of the implications: 1% of the total available supply of PPC Has been sold into Kiara’s wall.

[pennybreaker]

Perhaps my comment wasn’t 100% fair but the simple fact of the matter is that it’s much easier to dump a large order when huge liquidity walls are provided. This being available could encourage selling that wouldn’t otherwise happen if the seller knew they would have to fight for their desired average price on the open market. This is not good for NuBits or PPC. PPC is simply not liquid enough.

[mhps]

Think of the implications: 1% of the total available supply of PPC Has been sold into Kiara’s wall.

I think the volume mostly cycles through hte walls. In the same period btc-e perhaps has sole 300% of the total available supply of PPC.

Would these people be selling if there wasn’t an available supply of liquidity that they could enter without further driving down the price of PPC?

Would people be buying if there wasn’t an available supply of liquidity that they could enter without further driving up the price of PPC, when the price trends up?

the simple fact of the matter is that it’s much easier to dump a large order when huge liquidity walls are provided.

It’s also much easier to place a large buy order when huge liquidity walls are provided.

I can understand your arguement but my point is that it cuts both ways. The big liquidity will help huge buyers, too.

[Ben]

Plenty of PPC there to buy now.

This wall has been severely unbalanced since before Thanksgiving. We’ll see if that changes over time.

[mhps]

We’ll see if that changes over time.

I say we take it down as soon as possible. But we have to be clear why we do it, otherwise when situation changes we will be making the wrong decisions.

[cryptog]

@ben I see your point. Custodians will end up with peercoins that are losing ground against the USD.
I think you convinced me to vote for Chronos’ motion but I agree with @mhps on the fact that the pair should be enabled back once it becomes in favor for the custodians.

[cryptog]

But that should apply to BTC too if BTC/USD keeps that downward spiral…imho.