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

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.

1 Like

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:

1 Like

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.



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

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.

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.


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.

1 Like

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.

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.

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 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?

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.

Plenty of PPC there to buy now.

This wall has been severely unbalanced since before Thanksgiving. 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.


@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.

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

There is enough global liquidity within the BTC markets that using NBT as an exit isn’t much of a concern (at this point in time), but in general, you are right. Custodians need to limit their exposure to excessive volatility of their walls’ valuations the best they can.


I am not saying that. The market is difficult to predict. We should just remove PPC/NBT pair from the mandatory list, and let custodians choose and shareholders vote, based on benefit/risk.


now, whoever got ppc/usd into btc-e should convince them to do the same with NBT


As long as NBT is absolutely ready for BTC-E. BTC-E hasn’t added a pair in over a year, NBT would get a ton of use and attention there. We’d want it working flawless to maintain it’s reputation.

BTC-e seems to have decided that it will stick with only its existing pairs for the time being. There’s no other reason to explain why Dogecoin isn’t on there, but Terracoin, Novacoin, and Feathercoin still are.

I’ve written them a couple times but no response. We’ll try and coordinate something larger soon when we enter stage 2 of marketing.

Our success to date has primarily come from the provision of liquidity with low spreads. I’m confident it is the right to decision to provide more liquidity at lower spreads if possible, not less liquidity at higher spreads as some are advocating. Later in the evolution of Nu, there will be many other reasons for people to buy NuBits, but right now liquidity provision is the most important reason. It would be foolish to abandon serving the market that has made a success without establishing an alternative market position.

It is true we need to prevent losses as we provide liquidity, but I outlined clearly how to do this a month ago in my “Evolution of liquidity operations” draft motion. I’ve asked desrever and woolly sammoth, who will be responsible for implementing the changes, to finalize the motion. We just need to move forward with that rather abandoning our market.

I have proposed instantaneous balancing in my “Evolution of liquidity operations” draft motion. The delayed balancing you are referring to is only the first step in a series of iterations.