Current volume

[Yurizhai]

It sucks that it took Bitcoin doing what it’s doing for this to happen.

[Sentinelrv]

It sucks that it took Bitcoin doing what it’s doing for this to happen.

Yes, but I think it only puts emphasis on how strong our peg is when people run to it in an emergency like this. Perhaps this event will get people to look at us again, especially since all the exchange hacking problems are now in the past.

[Nagalim]

This dump is a long term boost for PoS, imo. People are getting sick of a consensus process made for aliens rather than humans.

To stay on topic: We’re number 10 on coinmarketcap when sorting by volume. Just beat bitshares for the day.

[Sentinelrv]

Bitcoin Indonesia has a volume of $2,715. I wonder if that will change their mind at all about delisting NuBits.

Bittrex volume is also doing better, currently $8,999.

[cryptog]

47 NuBits NuBits $ 554,813 $ 0.998907 555,420 NBT * $ 90,637 0.24 %

[desrever]

http://54.173.160.177/nu-market-history/

Here you can grab a scrape of historic volume of nubits

[desrever]

Interestingly enough I just notice same is happening with tether, in terms of volume… People using it to exit BTC . Is this the most wanted feature we are offering?

[cryptog]

Is this the most wanted feature we are offering?

We need merchants adoption…

[masterOfDisaster]

People using it to exit BTC . Is this the most wanted feature we are offering?

It’s very expensive for Nu to provide traders with this feature. I hope NBT get used for payments soon as only being a hedging instrument will bleed Nu out over time.

especially since all the exchange hacking problems are now in the past.

The problems are not completely gone, but have been traded for lesser problems. No Nu funds are at stake of exchanges defaulting, but funds of people providing liquidity are at stake.
They need to be compensated for exchange default risk as well as the volatility risk (as long as non NBT/USD pairs are directly supported by Nu).
One might say that Nu pays a kind of insurance against exchange defaults by not providing liquidity directly and paying people to provide liquidity instead.

Supporting non-NBT/USD needs to be phased out rather sooner than later in my opinion.
People who want to hedge BTC volatility with NBT need to make use of BTC/USD. That saves liquidity providers from the BTC volatility risk and is a little less convenient for traders.
But it can save Nu a lot of money and keep the liquidity on a more reliable level.
What would Nu do if TLLP liquidity providers decided to stop because of the risk?
How could the peg be kept?
Solely by NuLagoon (which is by design less responsive to people’s desire to stop liquidity providing)?

After the recent Bitcoin volatility events it might be the case that the pool compensation needs to be increased (or at least not be degraded) to keep the level of liquidity at the required level. We’ll see…

[cryptog]

hope NBT get used for payments soon as only being a hedging instrument will bleed Nu out over time.

It seems that @JordanLee prioritizes the hedging instrument…Why?

They need to be compensated for exchange default risk as well as the volatility risk

Increasing the spread would help them increase their compensations.

Supporting non-NBT/USD needs to be phased out rather sooner than later in my opinion

BCExchange will not help on that regard unfortunately btw.

[mhps]

BCExchange will not help on that regard unfortunately btw.

BCE can help by providing a very safe NBT hotwallet in the cloud when implementing Method 3 here.

[cryptog]

very safe NBT hotwallet

Good point.

[masterOfDisaster]

Regarding hotwallet:

[Passed] Motion to provide seed funding for B&C Exchange - a decentralized exchange built on the Peershares platform

Via BCE exchange web sites you effectively can create something similar to e.g. blockchain.info, but in an improved version:Web access to BCE provides BCE with a kind of online wallet capabilities - similar to blockchain.info.Transactions (e.g. withdraw) can be executed using a web site - similar to blockchain.info.This requires coins to be available in a multi signature deposit address - assumably better security that at blockchain.info (does blockchain.info support multi signature addresses and if what level?).

You can execute payments with all coins supported by BCE by creating a withdraw (to the payment deposit address) on any BCE exchange web site - that’s way more flexible than at blockchain.info which only supports BTC.And if you don’t have enough BTC, trade some of your deposited LTC or whatever first - that’s way more flexible than at blockchain.info.

But the major benefit over central wallets is this:there’s no risk to get your funds seized by taking down a central service or stolen by that central service.The central server as single point of failure is gone.All relies on the (distributed) reputed signers which can’t be tracked easily if ever.If you host your own web site, this is a quite secure way to create this kind of online wallet.

[Sentinelrv]

It seems that @JordanLee prioritizes the hedging instrument…Why?

Because he realizes that in order for Nu to become a real force, we need to replace Bitcoin as the intermediary currency used in crypto trading. Providing vast amounts of liquidity is his strategy for achieving that role for Nu. Unfortunately, it first requires a lot of development to NuBot in the form of parametric order books and then order book mirroring. Providing liquidity for B&C Exchange pairs will be the first step in that process and I assume it will only expand from there. Establishing Nu in this role will give us the credibility needed to promote use for payments online and in the real world. Without this strategy, all we can do is hope that people will use our NBT/USD pairs and I have a feeling we’ll come away disappointed with the results of that strategy. Again, I’ll repost Jordan’s own words on this (Notice the bolded part). Nothing seems to have changed in his actions since then…

“We can provide the best liquidity for every coin on every exchange. We can aggregate all the liquidity for any particular coin and offer it on multiple exchanges. In order to tap into this liquidity, people will need to buy NuBits. Providing liquidity has worked for us so far, but we can take it much further. Take Dogecoin for example, whose liquidity is fragmented between BTC38, Bter and Cryptsy among others. With the system I have outlined, a custodian with accounts at BTC38, Bter and Cryptsy can offer as much liquidity as all three exchanges combined, on any and every exchange they operate. This liquidity will be irresistable to traders. All they have to do to access it is buy NuBits. So they will. Talk of phasing this out in favor of our non-existent USD market is presumptive at best. Where is the demand for USD/NBT going to come from? No one is saying because no one knows. What we do know is the market has rewarded us for liquidity provision. Therefore, I argue for doing more of what has made us successful, not less.”

mhps had responded to me with this…

Those quotes were made in mid December last year before Nu lost heavily in exchange hacks and BTC price fluctuations. Much has changed then. Jordan’s vision might still hold valid, but the path to them is perhaps far from a straight one. Since then B&C has been created to address the exchange hack problem but I don’t see the volatility problem has been effectively tackled.

As he said, exchange hacks have been countered with decentralized liquidity and B&C. However volatility risk is still a prominent issue. I wish @JordanLee would give an updated response to his liquidity strategy and how we will eventually protect ourselves and liquidity providers against volatility risk.

[masterOfDisaster]

Why not testing the waters with only supporting NBT/USD on popular exchanges or even those who before limiting it to NBT/USD had frequently used NBT/BTC pairs?

BCE will most likely never support USD (I wonder how it should…). Providing NBT liquidity with a parametric order book will keep the (BTC etc.) liquidity risk low in the corresponding NBT trading pairs.

The peg needs to be kept in the NBT/USD pair - on centralized exchanges which will be fiat gateways for Nu.
As far as I remember NBT is pegged to the USD and not the BTC value equivalent of 1 USD.

Putting all efforts solely in NBT/USD would make as little sense as not testing NBT/USD waters

[Nagalim]

I believe in ‘high rate - low target’ for crypto pools and ‘low rate - high target’ for fiat pools. Unfortunately, I have not been getting good results from this setup on bter. My btc pool has much higher participation than my cny pool despite being at target all the time. In fact, I’m almost totally convinced I need to drop the target and raise the rate on the cny pool.

[nmei]

I believe in ‘high rate - low target’ for crypto pools and ‘low rate - high target’ for fiat pools. Unfortunately, I have not been getting good results from this setup on bter. My btc pool has much higher participation than my cny pool despite being at target all the time. In fact, I’m almost totally convinced I need to drop the target and raise the rate on the cny pool.

Hey, just give me some time…I’m moving stuff to the CNY/NBT pair…

[crypto_coiner]

It’s very expensive for Nu to provide traders with this feature. I hope NBT get used for payments soon as only being a hedging instrument will bleed Nu out over time.

Supporting non-NBT/USD needs to be phased out rather sooner than later in my opinion.People who want to hedge BTC volatility with NBT need to make use of BTC/USD. That saves liquidity providers from the BTC volatility risk and is a little less convenient for traders.But it can save Nu a lot of money and keep the liquidity on a more reliable level.What would Nu do if TLLP liquidity providers decided to stop because of the risk?How could the peg be kept?Solely by NuLagoon (which is by design less responsive to people’s desire to stop liquidity providing)?

Why not testing the waters with only supporting NBT/USD on popular exchanges or even those who before limiting it to NBT/USD had frequently used NBT/BTC pairs?

The peg needs to be kept in the NBT/USD pair - on centralized exchanges which will be fiat gateways for Nu.As far as I remember NBT is pegged to the USD and not the BTC value equivalent of 1 USD.

I second fully the 3 quotes above from @masterOfDisaster
The original commercial manifesto (video) of NuBits was for NBT to be a synthetic dollar, that people could use to pay for goods and services, not for traders to hedge their crypto bets

This liquidity will be irresistable to traders.

I dont understand this.

Talk of phasing this out in favor of our non-existent USD market
is presumptive at best. Where is the demand for USD/NBT going to come
from? No one is saying because no one knows. What we do know is
the market has rewarded us for liquidity provision. Therefore, I argue
for doing more of what has made us successful, not less."

How is it compatible with https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_imtRPCKCg

[cryptog]

Tks for reminding me of the exact statement made by Jordan Lee.

I think I understand now better his vision.

It appears that right now it is not possible to create a decentralized crypto-currrency (pegged) by using exchanges that deal with FIAT because those exchanges are by nature centralized. They can shut down the NBT/USD pair at any time if they want to. Of course spreading the pair over different FIAT exchanges would decentralize a bit the operations but we have seen back in Feb this year that even non FIAT exchanges could be hacked at the same time, leaving NuBits with no place to be traded suddenly and therefore endangering its life.
Maybe in the future, someone would be able to come up with a decentralized exchange that can deal with FIAT pairs directly but to me it sounds oxymoronic and right now it is certainly not possible.
However the creation of a decentralized exchange that deals with non FIAT pairs seems feasible and this is what BCExchange aims at.
The problem with BCExchange is that it cannot deal with FIAT pairs.
Therefore liquidity providers are subject to bitcoin’s volatility.
But is this really an issue?
After further thoughts, I would say that the answer is no.
Besides increasing the spread (this has to be tried but it seems that the chance that it would become the major way to compensate for dealing with volatility is rather low), It seems that one possible major direction would be to increase the liquidity provision rewards if providers think that the current pool monthly interests are insufficient for dealing with bitcoin’s volatility.
This could be counterbalanced by 2 elements, from a Nu’s P&L perspective.

• Since exchange default is non existent at BCExchange, Nu could still increase the rewards to deal with volatility while at the same time offering lower fees than current centralized exchanges
• Assuming that demand for NuBits will grow steadily and significantly over the coming months and years, Nu would be able to have significant revenues, that are higher than its expenses (that include liquidity provision costs) by an order of magnitude.

Overall, my point is that assuming that there is a strong demand for NuBits, rewarding generously liquidity provision would not be a problem. Therefore, Nu could for a while (maybe a long time) only have a NuBits liquidity provided mostly over non FIAT pairs.

[Sentinelrv]

I think some type of automated hedging built into NuBot would help with the volatility risk too. Not sure if that’s possible though. Maybe @desrever would know. People aren’t hedging because they see it as complicated. If it were made easier or even automated, then that would really help us out I think.