Comparison of the performance of XSPEC and NBT

[ConfusedObserver]

Following @Cybnate’s request I continue the comparison of XSPEC and NBT here.

Park Rate Voting

Offtopic: it is hard to compete in a strong growing market. Still some people prefer a savings account with low interest over something else. Some prefer it to have it under their bed. It is not always about profit only (although nice bonus), it is about options and diversity. Please open a new thread if you like to continue this discussion.

Park Rate Voting

Really? Didn’t this project start with more or less full reserve, were each NBT was backed by the equivalent of BTC? At least until the first ridiculous dividend payouts happened. The only way to bring the reserve to below 100% back then was loss from trading and other operational costs that couldn’t be covered by the dev fund… But that’s still ignored by and large. I’d say have a look at the books, but well, you know… Is this a kind of religious belief? The fundamentals of the project ar…

Park Rate Voting

Ok, I’m a bit early, but it’s already hard to trade NBT, while there’s decent volume at 5 different markets for XSPEC, which trade at $0.67 each. That makes $1970 for the 2,941 XSPEC or a gain of 294% as of 2017-08-29. To be continued. [image]

Park Rate Voting

I created a connection from the perspective of the economic feasibility for investors. NBT park rates suck for the whole year 2017 compared to most random picks. Please explain why anyone in his or her right state of mind should buy and park NBT if the profit to be had at e.g. XSPEC dwarfs it? Oh, you already explained that, albeit with the wrong focus. Because other investments are more viable. Plus other stable coins are more stable AND sustainable (e.g. bitUSD). As long as you can co…

[MaVo]

In addition, your money is gone should @jooize die from a flu or get hit by a car. Not sure if that is the kind of savings account you are looking for @cybnate? Considering how (not) smart you are, I guess that is what you like.

[Cybnate]

In addition, your money is gone should @jooize die from a flu or get hit by a car.

We are working on addressing that. It has been acknowledged that it is not a great situation. The situation has evolved from the context of lost funds or dysfunctional responses in multisig accounts a while ago. It is understandable that shareholders are hesitating. However I believe that we should return to multisig asap but with some clear contracts and proof of significant shareholding included. It is not so easy to implement without having shareholders loosing the ability to mint and vote. Two crucial aspects of being a shareholder in the Nu network. Work in progress.

[ConfusedObserver]

It has been acknowledged that it is not a great situation.

I remember that very recently a lot of money (NSR) was lost, when Phoenix had the sole control and responsibility over it.
Now you have another single point of major failure and call it not great.
I call it horrible, lessons not learned, irresponsible, shameless.
Buyers of NBT and NSR need to consider this risk. The way Nu does its “business” could be called funny if less were at stake for NSR and NBT holders.

The situation has evolved from the context of lost funds or dysfunctional responses in multisig accounts a while ago.

I seem to remember the major reason that cause the dysfunctional responses and found the thread:

[Withdrawn] Make Firing and Replacing Incompetent Liquidity Providers Our Top Priority

Motion hash for voting: c070f654c2ff3e43a10fc5ff1dbf8ad74e36b18f This motion content is being managed on Daology here. Here is the full text, for convenience: tl;dr: The peg has not been lost. It has been abandoned. Replace everyone who abandoned it.

Here’s an assessment of one of the signers:

Comparison between actual liquidity operations vs. with me as Chief

Blame architect @JordanLee who masterminded FLOT without attempting to put a timeliness requirement: Right at the beginning of FLOT formation, when asked How often online to access the web and ssh is needed? @JordanLee answered (emphasis by me) So it was understood that FLOT is expected to react in a-few-days time frame. It was not designed to be a daily operations mechanism. Most FLOT members promised 48hr guaranteed time and get accepted. They out-performed their promises. @Ph…

And here an assessment from a reputed contributor:

About multisig groups such as FLOT, FSRT and RSOT

FLOT was clearly a success. It operated swiftly and efficiently with keen consensus on matters that were well spelled out by motion beforehand. The only place the multisig group began to fail at wa's attaining consensus outside the rules of motion, which is actually to be expected because this is an area where shareholders themselves have failed to attain consensus. I can list some of the actual flaws in the system that caused the peg break, though they are numerous. They start with a white …

The situation is more complex than it appears and I wouldn’t want to spare Jordan from blame where he clearly earns most of it.

[Cybnate]

We can argue for ages about this. My takeaway from the events is that better contracts with clearer expectations and incentives for both parties are needed. I don’t agree it was well spelled out by motion, it was one of the reasons why I didn’t join FLOT. Having FLOT trying to sort out things on the way was not a good idea imo. Nagalim basically says the same in your quote. Shareholders and FLOT were clearly not on the same page.

The other part is to prevent people from jumping ship when it gets too hot in the kitchen they will need to have a stake in it. Some FLOT participants probably only had marginally small stakes or none. The only way to have stakes is at least prove ownership of significant shares when entering the contract AND have them partially locked up in a way tied to the contract. Ideally there should also be funds locked from contract holders (shareholders) when they are not playing by the contract. It sounds simple, but this type of contract is not yet simple to set up.

Re performance we all know that the fees are not covering expenses by any means. The same is the case for Bitcoin. The gains are being made on the asset itself. Eventually the fees should cover the expenses and you would have a sustainable blockchain, but we are years away from that, not only for NSR but also for BTC and many other coins.

So Xspec might win because their asset will increase in value when more people start buying because there is a believe than eventually some money might be made (BTW I have no idea what Xspec is about). NuBits will be stable, that is the point of it. When the money supply needs to shrink because demand is low providing an incentive to park Nubits is one of the options. Whether the provided rates are enough to have people parking the coin over selling it is a matter of markets. When BTC is increasing rapidly it will be hard to compete when it is on a downslide it will be easy and low rates might be adequate. Over time other methods for shrinking the money supply should be introduced imo.