Disagree LPC's Proposal - Nubits is a business!

LPC reward is needed in the adoption phase. I agree that revenue has to be made to run the system.

I think we should install NBT/USD bots at large payment processors such as rchange mentioned above. They are closer to NuBit business users than exchanges. And they have no shortage of USD.

1 Like

Why LPC reward is needed in adoption phase? If we don’t distribute dividends and put all selling fund on buy wall, Nu won’t have any problem.

1 Like

Take a look at how much trouble and risk Kiara had executing the first LPC proposal. How much LPC should get paid depends on their risks adjusted profit. Before a profitable LPC business model is validated there is great uncertainty whether any profit can be made. Nu net has to pay someone to do the liquidity distribution work.

btw Paying LPC NuShares is better than paying NuBits from the LPC grant. If the LPC sells NSR for NBT on the market, the NBT has been ultimately sold by a bot, therefore has USD backing in NuNet. If you get paid from LPC grant, these NuBits are not kosher – not sold by the bots and has no USD backing.


I know they have risk. But this is not a big risk for Custodial because NBT are granted from Nu systerm, not their own money.

For LPCs, I don’t think we need them at this moment, especially the very, very high interest.

I open this thread to let you hear many people’s voice who are in Chinese Peercoin Community. LPC’s proposals make people feel Nu is becoming a Ponzi scheme. I don’t think only Chinese feel that. At least, we give our competitors a good excuse to laugh at Nubits.

Dosen’t a small LPC provide his own BTC to provide liquidity?

There is risk when provide liquidity on NBT/crypto pairs, it seems one of LPC suffered loss on NBT/PPC pair. Am I right?

If you think the bonuses offered are too lucrative for being an LPC, then you should become an LPC and take advantage of it. So far, only one person has submitted a proposal that would allow them to claim one of the most recent bonuses offered.

Having a large number of LPCs is a critical part of the design. I’m sure both KTm and Jamie regret the low rates they offered for their services, and my guess is that they are not that interested in continuing as LPCs. Perhaps more importantly, using custodial grant funds as they are is not optimal because they have to be highly trusted and can easily walk with those funds, should they choose to. Having LPCs provide their own funds lowers the trust extended, protecting shareholders. No one has stepped forward to function as a true LPC outside of an NSR bonus program. It is an intimidating role that has risks associated with it. It is frightening to hand your money over to a trading bot you are not familiar with. Once people do it, it is no longer as intimidating and their risks can be quantified better at that point as well (based on previous results). They find they can operate profitably for much less than their initial high compensation.

Regarding the sustainability of LPC operations, the price being offered now is about 25% less than a month and a half ago. That is a very sustainable pricing trend. I have tried to make it clear that I expect the pricing to continue to drop rapidly, and I am confident it will. I have also proposed an evolution of liquidity operations that I am sure will lower costs even further than what would occur with our current approach to liquidity operations.

Some alternatives have been proposed in this thread. I encourage the development of those alternatives. However, we cannot wait for unproven alternatives to materialize. We need to develop a market for LPC services now. Not doing so puts the peg at risk. I believe offering the bonuses is a responsible action that can be expected to provide considerable benefit to shareholders.

If you believe shareholders are opposed to what I have done I suggest you advance a motion instructing me to cease offering such bonuses. If it passes, I will certainly abide by it.


This is really beautiful. I love how the decision-making process can be so decentralized via the motion voting mechanism. Thanks to Jordan for being so willing to defer to shareholders on a wide variety of decisions.

1 Like

I think both Jordan’s and LG’s arguments are well grounded. I am more inclined to Jordan’s proposal. Vote to express your opinion.

I agree with Jordan, this is stopgap. NSR will be used up sooner or later. Just keep LPC working before we find a better solution.

Right now nubits is working as the designers have designed it. If it can be worked later in other ways, i think we can wait for that :smile:

I tend to agree, but this has nothing to do with LPC reward for risking their own money.

@JordanLee I would like to be a custodial, if you and your team agree. Here are my proposal:

  • I want to get 20,000 NBT granted, and I will help for CNY/NBT pair on Bter.
  • My custodial service is free of charge, I don’t need any reward for my service. I expect to earn profit from price spread.
  • I don’t need Nubot, I will change the price manually. Since CNY/USD won’t change too quick, I can take the risk.
  • I won’t generate any report of my trading. But I will make sure the buy wall plus sell wall equal to 20,000 NBT on bter’s CNY/NBT pair.

Let me know whether you’re interested in my proposal.

1 Like

i think you have to make a custodian grant proposal and have to be voted in order to pass.
You propose to get 20,000 NBT from where? Since most of proposal are with the custodians’ own
Nubits thus the fee for the risk they take :wink:

There is no such pair afaik

NuBot is CNY-ready, no need to do anything manually. Is not only about changing price, is about having the network liquidity notified.

We can contact them to add this pair.

Sure. I still do not understand if your proposal is just to stimulate reflections or you are serious about it.

I feel my proposal is profitable.

Custodial who provide service for BTC/NBT pair may have risk, the risk or lost should be taken by NSR holders. My proposal is to provide CNY/NBT pair which won’t have stability problem.

I think lg15x meant to get it from a custodian grant generated by a custidian vote. If he promises dividends to the shareholders via spread revenue, and that the risk of losing the grant (due to unexpect events or due to running away with the fund :wink: ) is comparable to that of other custodians, then the shareholders will be more interested.

kudo to lg15x if this is a serious offer. Then he should be talking to the shareholders via a formal proposal than to Jordan.

That’s all well and good, but what is the specified timeframe of operations for this grant that pays out dividends from spread profits?

Hint: “Indefinite” isn’t an answer, so how does this grant reach an end-of-operations state?

As a NSR holder, I feel responsible for providing NBT liquidity, if there is no LPC, the NSR price will drop.

May I pledge my NSR to get some NBT and use Nubot on USD/NBT pair?