I see. If the sell side further decreases, that would be indeed an opportunity for nsr buy back to show the world we can either burn nbt or nsr.
Please don’t do a blind auction sell at $.002 and a blind auction buy at $.0025
Dual direction manual burning draft already there based on existing single direction burning motion
I see some misunderstandings of our design. If sell-side liquidity is consistently lower than buy-side, it means we should elect a sell-side custodian to sell NBT. That custodian can use those revenues to either distribute dividends or perform a share buyback, according to the will of shareholders.
Yes this is what i had in mind. Tks for the clarification.
The custodian MUST use those revenues to either distribute dividends or perform a share buyback.
It’s the same as buying NSR with printed NBT on the open market and burning those bought NSR.
edit to add: Using a custodian to do the action-burning or the selling is not mandatory. The auction performed according to [Passed] NSR sale and NBT burn shows that auction is a more efficient way.
We could elect a custodian and go around our elbow to get to our butt again, sure. Or we could just use the fully operational auction protocol I designed. Or we could just do completely centralized and corruptable blind auctions again.
By doing blind auctions we are telling the world that we are more centralized than the US banking system.
What happens if shareholders prefer dividends? Several shareholders mentioned a strong preference for that approach in another thread. Regardless, any approach we take requires trust in a person. I might trust @KTm or @JMiller to handle NBT sales revenue more than a piece of software designed by one person (you) that I don’t have the technical ability to review.
Either way, I think shareholders should begin to share their opinions on what they prefer. If sell-side liquidity remains substantially lower than buy-side liquidity for any length of time we should be authorizing a custodian (or software) to sell new NBT and perform either share buybacks or dividends. Maintaining our peg should be our highest priority.
I would be more interested in a dividend this time. We have not had any in a long time.
Sure, we could do dividends and take more money out of the system while we’re still fledgling, we certainly could do that and hope the marketing benefit would offset the cost.
You don’t need to trust my software. Just trust the block chain, and the moment I break protocol everyone can tell and run the numbers themselves. My first auction was off by 1.0999 nsr and mhps caught it. The auctioneer does not have to be the reservoir, the trust does not have to be held in one person. There are endless possibilities for further decentralization using seeded auctions as a jumping off point.
Ultimately, seeded auctions are not so much a software as a protocol for fair and transparent auctions. They are first and foremost a way to maintain the peg.
This is a common misunderstanding. At an enterprise level, share buybacks and dividends accomplish the exact same transfer of value to shareholders. In the case of dividends, shareholders who prefer buybacks will use dividend funds to purchase shares (and increase their percentage equity in the Nu network). In the case of share buybacks, shareholders who prefer dividends will sell some of their shares at the higher prices.
There is no difference in the amount of funds “leaving the system”. If there were, we would see corporations exclusively use one method or another. After all, corporations strive to maximize the return on investment for shareholders.
how many undistributed NuShares remaining from JordanLee holding will they be burnt or auction off
About 190mil. He will burn them when nsr grants become integrated into the protocol.
So ultimately with distributions we are rewarding the minters and not the nsr traders. I’m not going to say that’s bad, because I mostly identify as a minter, and distributions are directly beneficial toward me. That said, I am also an nsr trader, and that side of me kind of says there’s no point ever buying nsr high if we only have distributions and no buybacks.
It’s certainly an important conversation. I am excited about my auctions and I’m sorry if I downplayed the use of distributions. However, with illiquid nsr markets I think more price discovery is preferable over taking direct profit. Still, if someone proposed a distribution grant I would definitely consider voting for it based on the wording involved.
how can that be I thought there was only 187mil and 100mil auction off for B&C and 87 mil
That auction failed, then we auctioned just a few mil off to burn some nbt. The remaining 180-something million nsr will be burnt. We get the 10,000 NSR = 1 BKS for free (0 nsr dilution).
ahh ok thanks
Dividends, like interest, has a powerful draw that share buybacks don’t have. I also like to see a dividends distribution. Extremely thin NSR liquidity on the market is another reason to prefer dividends.
However I guess the curreny sell side reduction is related to B&C share payment. When B&C starts to pay dev team with NBT, the buy side will start to lower. This is just a guess. Pegging operation should mainly follow liquidity readings, so we should still think about NSR burning (or dividends distribution) and NBT providing.
Is someone going to propose a distribution grant?
Wouldn’t we be jumping the gun just a bit?